Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Saturday, October 24, 2009

You are what you buy into

Exactly what does it mean to be an "American"?

Ask 100 Americans and you will likely get 150 answers.

Does being American mean the same thing as having a strong sense of nationalism?

What does it take to be an American?

You can be born here or you can take a test and become 'naturalized'.

Is that really all it takes to 'be' an American? To simply hold legal citizen status?

Do you have to 'love it or leave it' to be an American? Must one buy into the indoctrination and rhetoric put forth by the public education system in order to be a 'real' American?

Is being an American an all or none situation?

It's interesting, because there are those who would say it is an all or none situation.

There are many who treat being an American as if it were a cult. You must totally accept the proffered word of the establishment, those who put nationalistic infused words to paper to fire up their followers spirits and keep them on the straight and narrow. Their motive is divine privilege. If not for sticking firm to ideals and concepts held by those who colonized the land so long ago, they would have no nation.

There are others who beleive being an American is akin to being a prisoner or even a victim. That by the very fact of birth in America, one is owed a blood debt by virtue of the crimes and sins of the past, this is especially common if one is born a non-anglo. Their entire movement and cause is rebellion. Being anti- whatever the establishment happens to be at the time.

I think there are others, like myself, who hold true to the better part of humanity. That the best ideas and social advances, can come from humans, regardless of race, nationality, ethnicity or social status.

The basis for the Constitution itself has many sources of inspiration. This group of people beleive that the values and beliefs put forth in the Constitution transcends even the people who wrote it and voted it to be the base document of what the nation as a whole would live by.

The people who put the words to paper and set their names in adopting it as law for everyone were imperfect people and by the very nature of their personal lives, lived in contradiction of the document.

Some of the men who signed that document were at the same time owners of slaves, owners of businesses that treated and paid workers excessively harsh. They were philanderers and womanizers.

Yet, despite those personal failings and shortcomings, the document they set into motion has brought about freedom and opportunity for any person, regardless of who they are or their parentage.

It is a case where the sum is greater than the total of the parts. When we hold the Constitution high as a standard, we are holding the best of ideals and intentions, to be for all people, not just those who fall short of their meanings.

We don't hold as perfect representatives the people who caused it to be, for even they who signed it were inspired by other peoples, in other places to culminate the best values of people from around the world into one document.

I don't idolize George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin or the many many others who signed the Constitution into being. I am glad they played their part in making it happen, but it goes no further.

It matters less the messengers and moreso the message itself. They did their job in bringing the message forth and we are better off because of the message.

Even they, the signers, did not give total credit to mankind for the message being brought into light. They cite Gods will and intent. They say it was divine and inspired from beyond themselves and were compelled to making it happen as much as choosing and acting to bring it about.

When mankind thinks and works beyond themselves, to seek what is best for everyone and not just a few, The ideas have surpassed the people who act to make them come through. Whether the ideas themselves came from a divine creator or simply the good hearts and will o the people, they achieve the same result. A better life for everyone.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

A profit at any expense, or none at all

This article covers a lot more than just constitutional government. It covers expectations and economic 'rights' as well.

Where is it in the Constitution that it says a business owner is entitled to or has a right to make a set profit percentage or the business is not viable? There is none. It's not even implied.

Why not? Because the framers of the Constitution believed that operating one's own business was one's own risk. Risk entails more than how much money one throws at it. It also concerns how much personal investment, meaning, the time and effort you put into it. The depth of interaction between yourself as the business owner and the people who agree to work for you.

Nowhere does it say that so long as one puts a certain amount of money into it, they will be guaranteed a minimum profit level. You're on your own there.

Interestingly enough though, a tremendous number of 'investors' and corporate owners believe and operate in exactly that manner. As if they are entitled to a minimum profit level and anything below that must be absorbed and handled by someone else, be it the workers or the the quality of the product or even by the government itself in terms of 'assistance ( read "bailout").

Always, always, always, they make sure the 'profit' is seen to before anything else and then expenses are handled from the rest of the pool.

"Well, we covered our financial interest, now how to pay the bills? How about we fire 20 people and use other parts made for practically nothing in another country?"

I'm sure that's how many people envision the American business operations discussion happening.

A message to American business owners and investors, You are NOT entitled to a profit, you are NOT entitled to being "rich" and you are NOT entitled to having someone else pay your bills when you have grossly mismanaged your business.

The American government should NOT be propping up businesses that practice these vulture-like habits and is only encouraging the not effective practice and mindset of 'entitlement' whether held by poor people who think govt should pay their bills or by wealthy people who think govt should cover their assets.

As an American, you have the right to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. After that, the government needs to stop trying to make people dependent.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

How the Lockerbie bomber shows we are succeeding against terrorism

The one thing as a united country we must to do counteract terrorism, by muslim extremists or otherwise is to be who we are, without hesitation.

The principles and values of 'western' societies, which include believing that individual freedoms, personal responsibilities and compassion for our neighbors and countrymen are among our highest concerns, cannot be stuttered on or denied simply because people who want to deny those very things might attack or see themselves as 'rewarded'.

We must continue living by our principles. What is right is right and we must continue to stand for that. Scotland believes, as many do, that compassionate release for those who are dying in prison with no cure or stopping that condition, is the 'right' thing to do.

Scotland believes in ones ability to live and die with ones dignity intact, regardless of whether others hold that person as being dignified or not.

Those in Libya and other countries where extreme muslim thinking is rooted will do well to pay heed that this person was not martyred. He was not given what his extreme muslim thinking values the most.

He was set free. A convicted and captured murderer and one who was set free, granted mercy by those who he would have killed.

The extremists and terrorists have not won, if they could not stop Scotland from acting on it's values in this manner.

They have succeeded in maintaining their convictions in what is right and treated this convict as they would anyone else who would have petitioned under law.

On the contrary, Scotland is winning as all the 'west' won. Were there behind the scenes political and money driven deals, perhaps. That will go to show that it is politics as usual for many of these so-called 'leaders' of our countries. They think of their own wallets and desires before the people they vow to serve.

The system itself though, kept working. Despite polluted politicians and wackos who think death and violence is the way to deal with others.

Remember this, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, you were given your last days in freedom by those you would have cowardly killed. There is more honor in that one action than in any number of the atrocious, cowardly, gutless acts of violence you or any number of those like you could hope to achieve with terrorism.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Sotomayor and her First Amendment Rights

A lot of the focus has been on the hearings for Judge Sotomayor Although it's pretty much a given for the Democrat judge, nominated by the Democrat President to be voted on by the Democrat majority Congress.

That is to say, if the elected representatives vote along party lines like they shouldn't but usually do, most think she is a shoe in.

Why do I even bother bringing this up?

A huge amount of attention has been brought up concerning a very stupid thing she said some time ago referring to her thinking a white man typically wouldn't be as 'wise' as a 'Hispanic' women in important decision making.

Now, on the whole, it is a pretty stupid thing to say. When a person finally gets over the juvenile emotional reactionary position of making their life decisions based on race and ethnicity, one would hope they would make better decisions in general because they are looking at people simply as people and not as some color of a person.

However, was she making that comment as a way of showing her disagreement with previous and current judges? Does she mean to say that she thinks the 'white' male judges have made rulings that are unfair to people as a whole because they only think as 'white' people?

I don't know. Legally, there's pretty much nothing they can do about that comment coming from her. She has the right to say things aloud that show she disagrees with the government and those who fill government jobs.

That doesn't mean though, she has any protection from other people. So the government can't take action because they don't like her comment. The people who have to vote for her need to take a close, hard look at someone who is supposed to be impartial as a judge.

If a case comes before her in which a white male is in an opposing position to a Hispanic female, will she have an 'automatic' decision there?

She has expressed 'regret' that someone might take her comment the wrong way. Which is ludicrous because there aren't too many ways you can take a comment like that.

What is worse is, she has squandered all the effort and struggle and energy that brought her to where she is now. The persistence, tenacity and grim determination to struggle beyond slavery and living as second class citizens for so long. All those things done by the people in the generations before us, before her, to see she has the opportunity and potential to sit in Americas government as an equal person. Do you read this Sonja? AS AN EQUAL PERSON.

No one went through the lives they did and continued to push forward just so we could change who has 'the power' in government. The idea was to battle on to ensure that all people are seen as equal. To be seen and treated with the respect and dignity all people deserve. Equally.

I hope Ms. Sotomayor really thinks about all those people who helped get her where she is now. I hope if she is voted in as a Supreme Court Judge that she forget she is a Democrat, forget she is a 'Hispanic' and even forget she is a woman. When she is up there on that bench, she is a person, representing and looking out for the best interests of all people.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Mexicans, immigration and the revolving door of the U.S. Gov't

Illegal immigration is still a hot topic. Blaming Mexicans and others "South of the Border" is also popular.

Mexicans and others like to say they are doing work no one else wants to do, this is, in large part, very true. BUT, they also they they are 'immigrants" like from other parts of the world and are not treated the same. This is only part true.

An immigrant is someone who is coming to a new country , leaving behind their old country. For good. Forever. You are coming to be part of the whole in the new country, removing yourself entirely from the old.

What a whole lot of Mexicans and others are doing is not immigration. They are being money gypsies. They want to come and live in the U.S., make money and send it back to family in Mexico and other places, and then come and go as they choose, without having left the old country behind at all or being an "American" 'all the way".

Unfortunately, the U.S. set the stage for this back in the 40's and 70's with the Bracero Program. This literally asked Mexicans to come to the U.S. and work jobs usually held by American citizens until their return from war. Mexicans ( and others) did their part, they came to help out and make money. What happened afterward is a shame to all intelligent people. The U.S. gov't shipped these good people out, more as prisoners and criminals rather than as people who came to their aid. Very harsh treatment which to this day has not been forgotten.

Now, modern day Mexicans want to maintain their own 'brasero' program. Coming into to the country and using services, making money (though accepting desperately low wages for it, showing just how bad the jobs are in Mexico) and taking it back to Mexico.

You can't call yourselves immigrants though. You have not 'bought into' becoming an American citizen and that is they key difference between you and the others. (Even some Mexicans who do want to completely leave Mexico behind to become American citizens)

The U.s. practice of allowing disproportionate numbers of VISAs to different countries is still something to shake you r head at. They insist on playing games with the world and who they want to let in. It's something they need to make immediate change over. The methods they take to 'curb' illegal entry could also be improved simply by how they position their 'incoming' offices. They could easily situate Immigration offices at points along border perimeters acting as entry points for people to come and apply for citizenship (this would prevent people from automatically becoming criminals by entering the country before filing) or for some kind of work program that is legally recognized. it would be an 'oasis' for those people walking god only knows how many miles to the Mexican/American border and are half starved and dehydrated. It could save lives.

But they don't. That would foil their game.


However badly the U.S. is handling these matters, that doesn't change the fact that many of the Mexicans in the U.S. are not immigrants nor do they intend to be immigrants. They are gypsies, plain and simple. I think they should quit pretending to be something they are not and quit acting so surprised when others call them out on it.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Life, Liberty and Happiness...and the ability to create and grow wealth?

There seems to be an increase in politicians using the terms 'creating and maintaining wealth" lately. It's like a catchphrase. When state lawmakers talk about why they are voting for bills or why they pursue certain interests, it is almost becoming a stock answer to make it relate to giving everyone the 'right' to "create and maintain wealth."

There are several television and radio ads with state senators and city council people talking about how everyone needs to create and maintain wealth.

UM, sorry. Not everyone has that as a goal in life. Not everyone 'wants' to be rich.

In fact, if you asked most people, they would be very happy to be 'comfortable'. Meaning to have enough money to support the lifestyle they choose to live. This does not automatically need to be 'wealthy'.

As it is, society has long associated the notion that accumulated wealth automatically equals 'success'. You are not a successful person if you don't amass wealth, is the typical seemingly common idea.

I can ultimately only speak for myself when I say that amassing wealth is not my goal in life. I like to be able to own my own house, car, living 'niceties' like a refrigerator, etc...

I don't need the fanciest or most expensive models out there. I try to be practical. I don't abuse credit. Typically, if I can't afford to pay cash for something, then that means I can't afford it and it doesn't get bought. Period.

I know a lot of people who are like that as well. Conversely, I know a lot of people who think that money is the only way achieve happiness. only when they gotten the most popular things, the fanciest items, regardless of how far into debt they go to get them, they simply 'cannot' be happy until they have them.

That is the 'false' American Dream. The idea that anyone and everyone can and ought to be wealthy.

The United States Constitution does not guarantee a right to wealth. It simply says the government should not get in the way of people who attempt to do so.

As a matter of fact, most of the what the Constitution says has to do with keeping the government out of peoples way. Not instructing the government in making sure that these things happen.

The Constitution does not guarantee 'entitlements' of any kind. It was designed to allow people to pursue their lives in a way that gave them choices and unblocked opportunities to live their own lives without government interference or intrusion.

Yet and still, we have politicians who have decided in their quest for perpetual re-election to promise things to people they have no business offering. To not only see to it that people can create wealth, but to go the step further and create systems that practically demand it. Leaving people with no desire to be wealthy no choice but to participate in banking schemes, government projects and social pressures to try to gain wealth or be punished for not doing so.

The U.S. is the land of freedom and choice.

If you choose to be wealthy, then go for it. If you choose to be broke and homeless, no one is stopping you. The only thing government should be doing is making sure that it stays out of the way and keeps some from taking unfair advantage of others. That's it.

The U.S., state and local governments need to stop trying to tell people how to live. It is only their business to see to it that people are safe, free to live their own lives and make sure everyone is playing fairly. Even the steps it takes into meeting those obligations have limits so as not to supersede personal responsibility and being accountable to each other.

Stay our of our way, politicians and quit trying to force everyone else to live by your ideals. We have our own lives and ambitions, thank you very much.

Monday, June 22, 2009

We the people of the United Casinoes of America

There was a point in American history when there was only one type of capitalism. Based on free trade and small businesses standing by their product or services.

People not only took responsibility for what they made or sold, they took pride in it. More often than not, their name was on it and there was a sense of accountability.

Laws changed and allowed corporations to form, taking responsibility from the people doing business. It was the company now who took the hits, People could make or sell a poor product with cheap parts and they were no longer responsible as individuals. They could take the money they made and run, leaving the company to sink or swim. nothing stopping them from starting another corporation under a new name doing the same shady business.

Lawsuits went from being reasonable, cause and effect related cases to being frivolous, "how much can I get for being ignorant" cases, also seeking to shirk personal responsibility and see how much they can take a company for.

They go hand in hand, companies claim they need the protection of incorporating to shield themselves from costly and frivolous lawsuits and customers say they need more responsibility and personal investment in the businesses they buy from.

There was a time when businesses experienced success or failure based on the quality of the product or service they provided instead of how much the value of the companies stock was worth from one minute to the next.

I like to refer to the two as 'corporate capitalism' and 'classic capitalism'.

Classic capitalism is how business in this country grew and became the foundation of what "Made in America' stood for.

Corporate capitalism is not about making a solid product or service, it's about making money. nothing else. It's like being in a casino. There are many 'players', people who put themselves in the games and the people who bet on the side, not even having the guts to play the game themselves, just throw money in and hope to cash in on what someone else is doing.

Under corporate capitalism, companies only want to know how much they can sell out for. They exist to make the investors more money. Once investors have decided they can't make 'enough' money from a company anymore, regardless of if that company makes a decent product or not. Regardless of how making some changes might improve it, they don't care. If the money isn't there right now, then it's no good to them.

Immediate gratification and money are the only things corporate capitalists are interested in. They don't care about 'antiquated' notions of pride and loyalty or being a responsible part of the community. It's just about the money.

They only see "the bottom line" and nothing else is important. If it's not about getting rich, it's not important.

When people remember the better years of their lives, they infallibly recall the earlier years when the stores and companies in the towns and communities were owned and or run by people and families that lived in the same community.

When business practices were determined based on peoples wants and needs. Not what the company wanted to pay for.

That kind of capitalism is what made this country great and looked up to. It is what made people proud to be who they were and where they worked.

It is about people, just like the government is supposed to be and the Constitution is. People shaping their own lives and investing in their communities. When they succeed as individuals, the whole community succeeds by having better products available and better jobs to work at.

I believe in capitalism as it was, classic capitalism. When individuals took the risks of starting a business and accepted those risks as well as reaping the rewards.

In corporate capitalism, the only risk those people are taking is how much money they threw at the situation. While in many cases, that may be a considerable amount of money, they make no personal investment in the business. They toss money in as one would as they watch a game of dice, not even being a player, just betting on the sideline.

I believe it is in the U.S governments best interest, the best interests of the country as a whole, to curb the effects of corporate capitalism. While they need to fix the many problems they have in-house, they need to take a stand for the American people as a whole.

America is not a crap shoot. It is peoples lives. It is the ability of one man or family or group of friends to make something of themselves. To go out and do something they believe in, something they are proud of and something that will eventually benefit the community as well.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

No two ways about it, "Zero Tolerance" must go

Individual and community. America is one of the greatest experiments in trying to perpetually maintain that delicate balance of respecting the needs and rights of the individual and trying to maintain a community in which the community as a whole is taken care of as well.

There is a pretty common saying, at least around where I am, that "the individuals freedom extends until it reaches the the next person."

I can agree with that. I should be able to do what I feel I need or want to do with my life, my property, my career, etc.. as long as I am not directly impeding someone else's personal rights.

When you sit down and think about it, that's a lot of freedom, especially when you do a comparison to other places in the world where the same types of freedom are not recognized or respected. Over in those places, it is supposed to be all about the community.

"Zero Tolerance" attitudes are an age old approach to making rules that typically is founded in frustration and a feeling of powerlessness by inadequate people who haven't been able to effectively communicate or demonstrate the ability to keep that balance between individual and community very well.

Zero tolerance leaves no room for individual circumstances or possibilities to recognize extenuating circumstances. It is the last gasp of air, struggling to maintain some sense of control.

Zero Tolerance is dictatorship, plain and simple, but apparently, many people seem to think this is OK as long as their image as a leader is maintained and the appearance of 'public safety is projected.

One of the most common phrases you will hear associated with Zero Tolerance is " ..but if even only one person is saved, then it will be worth it." It leaves the audience to think that everyone else will view them as a craven, cold-hearted monster if you vote to let the "one person" not be saved. It's blackmail, is what it is.

Not to often is the discussion allowed to move to, "If we save just one person and it causes a negative effect for ten others, is it still worth it?" At that point, The experimental balance is being weighed. What has more value, the individual or the community as a whole?

Even though they are arguing to merit of saving 'just one person...", the proponent is actually representing the side of the community over the individual.They are saying that the best thing for the community is to make and enforce laws that further inhibit the abilities of individuals from doing whatever it is that is seen as causing harm, necessitating the need to rescue all those "one persons".

It's the excuse of "A few bad apples spoil it for the whole bunch" where the soon to be criminalized activity has been done by many people over a long period of time most likely but since the enforcers of law cannot determine who is going to abuse the limits of being responsible and 'common sensical' of that action or behavior in question, it is easier for them to prohibit everyone from doing so. Therefore, if no one is doing it, then no 'one person' can be hurt by it again.


It boils down to enforcement, not concern for the people, that motivates Zero Tolerance rules.

To further confuse matters is there are two primary 'types' involved in bringing Zero Tolerance about.

1) The emotional, sensitive people who have witnessed something go very bad and are simply an emotional mess inside and they are motivated by sincere, yet over-protective thoughts in how to prevent the next bystander from witnessing or being emotionally affected.

2) The ineffective community leaders and law enforcement officials who realize that policing for the said 'bad apples" is a tremendously difficult job that is made much easier to do if they could 'ban' items or actions that are most visibly associated with the behavior or actions in question and only have to look for those who are in possession of said items, instead of trying to deduce who of the people having said items is exercising poor judgment.

When you see the news, more often than not, you will see reports of victims of Zero Tolerance rather than the supposed 'beneficiaries'.

Simply because someone or some office is unwilling or unable to take consideration of all the information relating to the case, someone is criminalized or facing severe and publicly scoffed consequences.

"Sorry 72 year old person, you cannot carry that pen knife because you might accidentally stab someone with it, and because you carried it in with you, we will now have to put you in jail for awhile. I'm sorry if you have bad arthritis and this is the best way to help you do common things like open mail and other 'typical' tasks, Zero Tolerance is in affect here and so we must check our wits at the door and allow no rational thought on the subject. Enjoy your stay in county jail."

While you may think the comment above is ludicrous and inflammatory, it has actually happened. in a place where all knives of any type, were banned because some juveniles were scratching up public property and officials could not get hold of the situation, so, Zero Tolerance came about and no knives of any sort were allowed in those public areas anymore, by anyone.

Even a 72 year old man who opened letters and cleaned his fingernails with a 1 1/2 inch keyring pocketknife.

Boy, they showed him who is boss, didn't they. I bet he was just waiting for the officers in that area to leave so he could carve his sweeties initials in a tree or on a picnic table.

BUT, no one got hurt, no one was accidentally stabbed or had an eye put out. No property was damaged and everyone in the community learned a valuable lesson, that rules is rules is rules and everyone needs to be mindful of the rules. Whew, society is saved once again.

Zero Tolerance is an over reaction that trounces an individuals rights and has no respect for any individuals ability to use reasoning and good judgment for themselves. It only takes in to account those who do not control themselves and refuse to be good citizens and neighbors in a community.

Of course, it also makes people who are exceptionally emotional and 'community conscious' feel better too.

The next time a school or town or any law enforcing entity tries to bring in Zero Tolerance, remember, education and persistence as well as everyone in the neighborhood, school, where ever, will have more beneficial impact on the situation than Zero Tolerance rules.

One person might be saved, but eventually, everyone else will get the shaft.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

At the end of the day...

I have been one to point out things that aren't going as well as I would like to see them go on a national level as well as locally.

However, believe it or not, when I think of this country, the U.S., I think of potential.

I see what is gained at the end of the day after a lot of conflict, misunderstanding, ignorance, arrogance and sometimes plain old pigheadedness on the parts of everyday people and politicians alike.

People have worked and struggled, fought and bled to take a step forward at the end of it all. To see that the next day will be a better day. It's been this way since before the first European ever stepped foot on this land.

This country has been centuries in the making. Bringing different people together from a variety of places around the world.

We are continuously evolving as a united people. Americans thrown together voluntarily and by circumstance.

We shed old habits and ways of thinking and adopt new ones to better suit a different way of life here.

My ancestors of indigenous blood both here in the geographical U.S. and south of the border once lived in vast Indian nations that often thought of themselves as higher on the evolutionary ladder or as a more advanced people than those in other tribes and nations.

They were quite surprised to find themselves on the downside looking up the ladder after Europeans with vastly different technology for making war arrived and not only wanted what the nations had, but didn't want to see the indigenous people even as equal human beings.

They were prideful and that was one of the big contributors to the downfall of the Indian nations in Mexico and the U.S.

The incoming Europeans were prideful as well, it was only due to the technology and the ruthlessness in which they used it they gained the upper hand in dominance.

Since then, other people from other countries have come and added their essence to the mix. Some accepted readily, others having to fight the same battle against pride.

Throughout all the violence and harsh words and hurtful things said and done by everyone involved, everyone stayed. They still stay. It's the hard fought battles and the well deserved wins for respect, dignity and fair treatment of all people that keep us here.

The people, all of the people, have fought too hard and too long too give up now. It would be wasteful of all the effort and hard work by everyone involved to waste it all on quitting.

When we look back at history and the progress we have made and the hard won understanding gained by defeating pride again and again so that all human beings are seen as equal and deserving of the same respect and rights, we see success made over those long days.

To bring all the people from all the places of the world and none being in dominion over another, instead, all people having the opportunity to live their lives as free people and no one group or class dictating their fate is incredible, astonishing and truly awe-inspiring.

For those of us who have lived our entire lives here and caught up in the squabbles and battles day to day life brings us, it can be hard to see this great progress we have made. We can't see the forest for the trees, as the saying goes.

Let's pull the camera back a bit though and take a look at the big picture, not only at this one point in time, but over the course of the last three hundred years or so.

If we went to any place on the planet back then, not one person would have said what we have now would be accomplished. It would be foolish in their eyes to even try.

Do all of the people living here behave in a dignified, conscious manner? Not all of us. In truth, some of us have become ignorant of the history that has been made. Some of us are too self absorbed become it has become easy to be that way in this country now.

The U.S. constitution is a document that has made what seemed the impossible, possible.

Have there been hardships suffered by some? Yes. Are there still hardships and wrongs perpetrated upon one another as we live today? Of course.

The fight is no longer a fight of life or death in this country anymore though. It is no longer a debate of whether a different looking person is a man or not a man anymore. it is a given that all men all created equal and a hard won given at that now.

The battles today are in the nuances, the details. There are also painful and exhausting discussions and fights. But they are worthwhile.

At the end of the long day, reason will be seen and the right thing will be done. It is what we are brought together here to do.

I ask all Americans to stop every once in awhile, don't just see the here and now. See where we have been, where we have all come from and as we have come together and lived together, fought together and squabbled amongst each other, look to see where are we headed.

We have done so much right at the end of the day that it bears continuing the fight to work on what is still wrong. It is not a waste of time to keep trying, to have hope and to think things can be better than they were. They already are.

As long as we continue to keep true to the Constitution and have some faith in one another, we can accomplish even more.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

A postcard from out-of-country. Texas, that is.

What would it take to secede from the Union?

What would the overwhelming ramifications be?

To be sure, it is not something that goes un-discussed. This is a topic that is bandied about in certain states, Texas being one of them, regularly.

In this day and age, could a state even manage it?

Think about it from a money perspective. Texas is home to some multi-billion dollar international corporations. Their allegiance to Texas is likely only with a favorable tax base. They don't want to lose the millions of dollars, er consumers, that might look negatively on them if they were to secede with a Texas state.

What about politics?

You really think the U.S. Government wouldn't pull a trick out of Russia's hat, as recently displayed in Georgia over in Europe? You bet your sweet bippy the army and national guard from all over would be called up to take positions anywhere around and in Texas they could manage.

They would feel they had to. The U.S. would be a laughingstock around the world if one state broke away after all the B.S. U.S. politicians have blustered to just about every other country out there.

The U.S government would adopt a "If you aren't with us, you are against us." position in the situation, only making a difficult situation worse.

As we speak, our politicians are actively encouraging corporations to build 'smart grids' referring to power companies using modern technology to control exactly how much electricity you use, where you get that electricity from and even enabling them to make the decision to change the temperature settings on your thermostat if they think you are using too much.

It's true. Imagine what it would be like for you to have to pay your bill for electricity every month, only to have some faceless corporation, with the blessing of your government, telling you how cold or hot you can have your home.

No, I can't imagine anyone thinking about secession with something like that coming down the pipes.

Am I advocating secession? No. It's not the answer either.

It's a tempting thought though. Provoking to say the least. Starting all over, from scratch, if you will with a new 'national' government. Trying to improve on the things that were good about the old government and do away with the negatives at the same times.

No, it wouldn't really solve anything and I'm not sure it could happen anyway at this point in history without a lot of companies buying in (it would take a tremendous amount of money to finance the ordeal) and a lot of unnecessary bloodshed.

No, all it would really take to fix things is to have the politicians get a spine and tell the corporations to stick it. This is a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people", not "of the corporations, for the corporations".

Our politicians are too easily bought by companies with big budgets for gifts and vacations and board positions after they retire.

The best solution is that as provided by the U.S. Constitution. Vote them suckers out and don't elect easily corrupted con artists back in.

If the corporations have their way, the people of this country will have no individual freedoms left, all in the name of the dollar.

Yes, I can see the appeal of the discussion to secede. I just think there's a better way to effect real change that would help everyone, not just the lucky SOB's who got a second chance to start over.

Friday, May 29, 2009

I'll have a Prius please, can you supersize that?

Hmm. It appears the government is already knee deep in its action to take over General Motors.

Articles are popping up all over proclaiming a "new" GM is emerging and it is shedding the gas guzzlers and big vehicles to focus on small cars with lots of great gas mileage.

Interesting.

Doesn't it matter at all what the public, the actual consumer market wants to buy?

Think of this. Every year there are articles and books and shows produced telling us how big people are getting. Not just from obesity, but human beings living in the U.S., due to improved health, food medicine and other positive attributes of living in a 'first world' country are getting taller, more physically robust bodies.

So, by all means, lets cram these bigger humans into smaller vehicles.

Who cares about comfort. Who cares about safety. Less car around more person obviously means safe ride right?

Who are these bureaucrats to say what types of vehicles people "should" drive anyway?

If all manufacturers make are Prius sized cars, what on earth will all the people taller than a fourth grader going to drive to work in? Will the government mandate riding the bus for anyone over 5 foot seven?

This is America. if you want the government to make all your decisions for you, there are countries that do that already, don't feel like you must stay here.

If you want to drive a small car and be "green", by god, do that. Again, this is America, you have the right to decide for yourself what to drive,, but quit forcing your desires and opinions down everyone else's throats.

By the way, take that statement into serious consideration. "you have the right to decide for yourself..."

Your freedoms in this country extend as far as your arm. They involve only you. Once you try to place expectations and demands on others, you are out of bounds.

Yes, as a 'civilized' society, we must agree on common rules and policies that are fair to the most people interests across the board. This is only in terms of the absolute basics though. Not to extend into the deepest details of every ones lives.

Let GM fail. If they make vehicles that people want, at prices people can afford, then people will buy them. otherwise, the next guy will figure something out that works.

The government has absolutely NO business running a business. This is a horrific precedent and a very dangerous step towards an America most people do not want to live in.

What next? If you can't make your house payment, or raise your kids the way the government thinks you should, they will appoint a new "Household Manager" for you?

"Big Government" needs to stay out of Big Business, and every other type of business for that matter.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

corporate minded game playing

Everyone talks about ethical behavior. some talk about practical behavior. When it comes down to the line and maybe a job, it all goes out the window and the head games begin.

For example, in a recent online article about the 'recession' and job layoffs, they discussed what groups of workers are 'targeted' more than others.

First off, in any business, times are going to change. It is inevitable. Anyone who thinks their financial levels are going to stay static over any extended period of time has no business running a business. You have to anticipate shifts in the marketplace, the local economy, etc and plan ahead accordingly to be successful.

Sometimes money will be good and you can hire more employees and sometimes money will not be so good and you might have to let some employees go.

It's uncomfortable, but much like removing a deep buried splinter, it may not 'feel' good, but once it's done you will be healthier for it.

Articles like the one I mention are common and are the subject of discussions in board rooms and managers offices all over. Who to let go and how to do it.

Because of social inventions like labor unions and lawyers, many businesses are actually afraid to let some workers go simply because they are afraid to be sued. ( This is not to say labor unions are always a bad thing, in times when corporations and business management are not looking out for the safety and working conditions of employees, they serve a valuable purpose. For companies that are not so negative, they can be as bad as the companies they claim to organize against. This is another story though that we will be talking about in the near future.)

Because of this, they contrive wild scenarios and lame plans for figuring out who to eliminate.

To be honest, the best method to use is productivity first, then attendance, after that, attitude. in that order.

There's nothing to worry about 'defending' when you base your decision on productivity. Who is getting the job done and who isn't. If you are blessed with a lot of productive people, move on to attendance. It doesn't matter if someone is a good worker when they are there, if they are missing a lot of time then they are leaving their co workers holding up their end of the work . It directly relates to productivity and again, easy to defend if someone feels they need to sue because they want to take money instead of make money.

Lastly, you look at attitude. If productivity and attendance are all near equal, then you look at who is the most disruptive. Disruptive people make it harder for others to concentrate and be productive ( do we see a theme of being productive here yet? )

I have been in management both in businesses I have owned and operated as well as for national chains. Ideally, you go for what makes the most sense. Unfortunately, sensibility isn't what gets used most often.

No, instead, they plan for "well, this guys wife is a lawyer, so don't lay him off" and " well, this woman has kids, so let's lay off the single guy who is more productive."

Games, that's what they are. It all boils down to being on the defensive and trying to plan for legal shenanigans instead of actually running a business.

What's worse is, this government is actually perpetuating these types of games by literally inserting itself into businesses and forcing demands and policies into place that have no place in these businesses.

'Corporatism' is bad enough on it's own. It encourages business executives to be lax in responsibility to and for the business and in some cases, because of governmental pre-requisites in tax policies, etc, it encourages illicit behavior.

Now, when you have government officials inserting themselves into board and vote holding positions, companies are running scared, because they know that unrealistic and overly social-conscious ideas are going to be forced on them when they may have no business being there at all.

Please Americans, just go back to plain good sense and focus on the important things in businesses. Productivity, fair pricing and being a good member of the community you are in.

Anymore of these corporatist and legal shams is beneath us.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

health care and a persons right to choose or not choose

Where is the line drawn between where a person has the right to determine medical treatment for themselves and their family and the governments interests intervening for "the public good"?

For example, if someone has a religious belief that does not allow for surgery as that defiles the body, they are not obligated to follow a course of action that forces it upon them.

Even if not having that surgery means that person will certainly die sooner, it is their choice to do so or not do so.

If however, someone has decided for his underage child that treatment for a lethal illness or injury will not be treated, what then?

That man is the child's parent. He has the right to make decisions he believes are in the child's best interests, both physical and spiritual.

However, the government has and continues to intervene in these cases. It is the governments contention that they know what is best for a child's health interests than the parents do. Even if it conflicts with the religion of the family.

Even worse, the government has intervened in the decisions of adults making decisions for themselves, often based on the position and intentions of a physician or hospital against the adults wishes, because they value the doctors position over the individual.

As much as they like to believe that science is the end all, be all last word on the discussion, their "science" changes all the time. One day it is "proven" that drug X will be good to treat something, Three years later, more study "proves drug X not only doesn't treat it, it might even make it worse in some cases. In the meantime, doctors, hospitals, lawyers and government officials, in the name of pseudo "truth" of their science are forcing people to use the "proven" drugs.

As tools science relies on to investigate medical issues changes and adapts all the time, the science changes all the time with it. What they thought was iron clad fact one day, can be moot or entirely reversed a matter of days to years later.

Science is not exact and it is not always right.

However, The government consistently makes laws and enforces decisions based on incorrect and sometimes 'bad' science all the time.

Government also languishes under the idea that 'more is better'. Thus, relating to human medical terms, more years to live equals a better life. Anything that prolongs a persons life is considered good, no matter how painful or uncomfortable or even damaging that might be.

Sometimes the larger population is squeamish about letting people die. So many have a religion or other idea that death is a bad thing that anything is encouraged to avoid it. They will 'vote' to make sure no one has to 'endure' the terrible thing that death is, or they perceive death is. Even to the point of making someone sicker or debilitating them. They rationalize that even though you are perpetually ill or even disabled, at least your not dead and you should be thankful to them they set in place these rules to keep you alive.

Quality of life doesn't enter the discussion until the individual is faced with living a long life of pain, illness or debilitation. Suddenly, well, maybe quality of life is important, maybe in just their case. Why no, they don't want the treatment now that will cause great suffering but extend their life a few more years. They would rather be comfortable and try to enjoy the few years they have left.

However, it is still 'easier' for the government and voters to make decisions for individuals based on what the public decides they don't want to be uncomfortable with.

I contend the government needs to stay out of an individuals choice to seek out and receive treatment, or not to. It is none of their business.

If they want to regulate doctors and hospitals to make sure they are offering services that are performed in an approved and taxable manner, fine. If a doctor or hospital is going to charge money for these services and products, they should be held to high standards to ensure things are done in an ethical and appropriate manner.

To tell someone that simply because the service and products exist, that they are obligated to use them is something else entirely.

Waffle and Pancake houses exist and are quite popular. However you don't see the government telling people they must see their local IHOP waitress for breakfast if they feel hungry or face penalty of law for not doing so.

To the government and 'well intentioned politicians with their 'friends' in the medical lobbying industry I say, offer your products and services if you must, but leave the decision of whether to make use of them to me, thank you very much.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

What being "Americanated" is all about.

The term "America-nated" is based on humor found in the most recent President Bush and his ability to create new words out of thin air.

It refers to the effects of the general population living in the U.S. being subjected to growing government influence and nanny state policies that are ever intruding on day to day life.

Or, what I think President Bush would call being "Americanated".

The basis of these articles is the U.S. Constitution. The constitution in a legal sense, is America. It the the basic principals and rules which direct our laws and essentially our quality of life here.

Being based on the constitution itself, and not the modern, ever intrusive politicking that currently serves as government, this blog site is very Pro America.

One way I like to think of America and the constitution is that the constitution is a recipe. It has the basic ingredients for a good foundation and accommodating the best life for the people in general.

Like all recipes however, it is subject to the cooks in the kitchens interpretation and 'flair' if you will.

The Constitution is there to keep things on track in government. Congress, the President and the Supreme court, are likely to make changes to how it is seasoned, add ingredients, trying various and sometimes ridiculous presentations.

Never-the-less, it is still the same basic recipe and that is what this blog will focus on. The key recipe and how far the current kitchen staff is wandering from it.

I will try to avoid the' popular' political trends and not resort to partisanship, name calling or other silliness typically engaged in by elected officials and paid pundits. I say I will try and there are times I may not succeed. Especially in terms of calling something silly, well, something silly.

For the record, I am registered as an "Independent" for voting. I do not associate with any recognized political party as I think they are all corrupt.

I do not support any one current existing elected representative in any branch of the government. Again, I think they are all corrupt or had to play political games to be elected because the system itself has been corrupted.

I will be seeking like minded people to contribute articles to this blog in order to get as much informative and entertaining content as possible here. No, I am not Glen Beck. Although from time to time, he can be entertaining too. I even think once in a blue moon, he gets it right.

In general, I, and this blog are fairly conservative. Stick to the basics and stick to the facts.

Finally, I want to say that not everything posted here will be a shining example of happy-happy when talking about this country in terms of government and elected officials. Especially since I think the majority are no longer actually interested in supporting the constitution as is. I will call them out. it doesn't mean I don't support America, it means I don't support the con artists who have duped the voters into electing them.