A conservative now seems to be anyone who calls anyone who disagrees with him or her a “liberal”.
How to tell who is a “liberal”? I don’t know. There are so ,many varieties.
In the current political climate. Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower would be considered “liberals”. Probably even Mr. Republican, Robert Taft!!
It also seems that the “conservatives” are being very “liberal” with their interpretation of the Constitution: corporations are people and the Second Amendment means the people have no right to regulate a militia of one person. I would imagine that the conservatives that wrote these documents would be appalled at these interpretations.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2019
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Ignoring important papers while praising a piece of cloth
“It amazes me that those who are so adamant about the public standing for the national anthem seem to ignore the Constitution and Washington's Farewell Address, the latter just after having it read as a ritual.”
My comment to “A Rebel, a Warrior and a Race Fiend”, Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 2017-09-25, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/columnists/trump-race-nfl-nba.html?comments#permid=24189583.
My comment to “A Rebel, a Warrior and a Race Fiend”, Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 2017-09-25, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/columnists/trump-race-nfl-nba.html?comments#permid=24189583.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Constitutional Amendments: Government Power Versus Personal Rights
Originally published in the
Reader Weekly
November 25, 2004
I don’t know how many constitutional amendments have historically been before Congress, but in the last two decades it almost seems Congress has been flooded with them.
I did a Google Search and a search of the House of Representatives web site for “constitutional amendment”; both yielded thousands and thousands of results. I narrowed my search to the House Judiciary Committee and got a mere 6652 hits. However, I had a hard time finding more descriptive material in them. I went back to the Google search and looked into several of the first 80 items. From various sources I succeeded in finding ten currently proposed amendments.
Marriage Protection Amendment (H. J. 106)
Constitutional Rights for Victims (S.J. Res. 1, H. R. Res. 10)
Desecration of Flag (S.J. Res. 4, H.J. Res. 4)
Balanced Budget (H.J. Res. 22)
Religious Freedom (H.J. Res. 46)
Abortion Ban
Continuity of Government (H.J.Res. 83)
Naturalized Citizens for President (H.J. Res. 104)
Natural Born Citizen Act (S.2128)
Direct Election of the President (H.J. Res. 109)
Some readers will think all these amendments should be adopted and some will think some of them are frivolous. I put the relevant House or Senate bills after most of these. You can find their text, current status, and related information by searching from The Library of Congress' Thomas by bill number or keywords.
I didn’t put a bill number by Abortion Ban because I could not find a bill that seemed to directly relate to it. All the bills I scanned seemed either to limit it or limit its prohibition.
I think we should ask four questions about any proposed amendment to the Constitution.
1. Does it define the structure and purpose of government?
2. Does it preserve the checks and balances?
3. Does it extend the power of government or does it extend the rights of persons?
4. Will it really work?
If you read the original Constitution, you will find that it mostly defines how the government should work and defines broadly what functions each of the three branches has. It doesn’t get into details of what people may or may not do; those are left to particular laws, their administration, and their judicial review.
We who were fortunate enough to take civics and American history learned repeatedly that the framers of the Constitution did not want one branch of the government to dominate the other. They were especially wary of a king-like executive. They were divided on how strong the federal government should be.
The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were to correct a flaw many critics felt the original Constitution lacked – protection of the people from an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, although Congress thought it had a clear vision of what those rights should be, many people have distorted them to either claim a greater right than Congress intended or claim a right does not cover certain situations.
Will an amendment really work? History gives us mixed lessons on this. The amendment that flopped the most was Prohibition – it really was interpreted by a large number of people as a restriction of their freedom. On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race or color, took decades to be enforced. Some feel that it is still not uniformly enforced in all States.
Let’s take a quick peek at some of the amendments I listed and see how they satisfy my four questions.
Marriage Protection Amendment
It could be argued that this defines a purpose of government, but that is a stretch. It really is an extension of the power of the federal government at the expense of individuals and the states.
The best comment I found was by Rep. Jim Davis of Florida. “Personally, I believe marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman; however, I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because I also believe the United States Constitution should protect rights, not deny them, and states should have the right to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognized within their borders.”
If it is to be considered an extension of people’s rights and a protection of marriage, then maybe the first sentence should read “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman and they shall be considered equal partners.”
Will it work? It certainly won’t prevent two men or two women living together.
Constitutional Rights for Victims
This amendment enjoys bi-partisan support. It essentially guarantees that victims of violent crimes be informed of proceedings against the accused, be allowed to heard at public proceedings, and be protected from further injury. It does have a loophole about restrictions “dictated … by compelling necessity.”
It definitely extends the rights of some people though others would say it limits the rights of the accused.
As to preserving checks and balances, the judiciary prefers a statutory approach to victims' rights over a constitutional amendment.
Religious Freedom
This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of amendments. In the guise of protecting freedom it extends the power of government to promote religion. The catch is the use of “people” instead of persons, such as in “The people retain the right to pray…” Does this mean that if the majority determines that a public gathering will have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim prayer, then the minority must sit quietly by while a prayer that they find offensive is given? Is the “people” a local government that will specify the prayers? Would an evangelical Christian be happy if all local government functions began with a Muslim prayer?
Special Elections/Appointment (Continuity of Government)
Naturalized Citizens for President
Natural Born Citizen Act
Direct Election of the President
These are the only amendments in my list that I think really satisfy all of the questions I posed. My only caveat is, will they work as intended or will they have some serious unintended consequences? The Continuity of Government is opposed by many representatives because it doesn’t guarantee quick elections to replace representatives. The Naturalized Citizen amendment is called the “Schwarzenegger Amendment” but it could apply equally to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born, Democratic governor of Michigan. The Natural Born act is more limiting in that applies to people whose citizen parents happened to be elsewhere at the time of their birth or to people who immigrated as children. Direct Election essentially abolishes the Electoral College.
Let’s hope that these four get more attention than the others and that Congress and the State legislatures deliberate them openly and honestly.
Reader Weekly
November 25, 2004
I don’t know how many constitutional amendments have historically been before Congress, but in the last two decades it almost seems Congress has been flooded with them.
I did a Google Search and a search of the House of Representatives web site for “constitutional amendment”; both yielded thousands and thousands of results. I narrowed my search to the House Judiciary Committee and got a mere 6652 hits. However, I had a hard time finding more descriptive material in them. I went back to the Google search and looked into several of the first 80 items. From various sources I succeeded in finding ten currently proposed amendments.
Marriage Protection Amendment (H. J. 106)
Constitutional Rights for Victims (S.J. Res. 1, H. R. Res. 10)
Desecration of Flag (S.J. Res. 4, H.J. Res. 4)
Balanced Budget (H.J. Res. 22)
Religious Freedom (H.J. Res. 46)
Abortion Ban
Continuity of Government (H.J.Res. 83)
Naturalized Citizens for President (H.J. Res. 104)
Natural Born Citizen Act (S.2128)
Direct Election of the President (H.J. Res. 109)
Some readers will think all these amendments should be adopted and some will think some of them are frivolous. I put the relevant House or Senate bills after most of these. You can find their text, current status, and related information by searching from The Library of Congress' Thomas by bill number or keywords.
I didn’t put a bill number by Abortion Ban because I could not find a bill that seemed to directly relate to it. All the bills I scanned seemed either to limit it or limit its prohibition.
I think we should ask four questions about any proposed amendment to the Constitution.
1. Does it define the structure and purpose of government?
2. Does it preserve the checks and balances?
3. Does it extend the power of government or does it extend the rights of persons?
4. Will it really work?
If you read the original Constitution, you will find that it mostly defines how the government should work and defines broadly what functions each of the three branches has. It doesn’t get into details of what people may or may not do; those are left to particular laws, their administration, and their judicial review.
We who were fortunate enough to take civics and American history learned repeatedly that the framers of the Constitution did not want one branch of the government to dominate the other. They were especially wary of a king-like executive. They were divided on how strong the federal government should be.
The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were to correct a flaw many critics felt the original Constitution lacked – protection of the people from an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, although Congress thought it had a clear vision of what those rights should be, many people have distorted them to either claim a greater right than Congress intended or claim a right does not cover certain situations.
Will an amendment really work? History gives us mixed lessons on this. The amendment that flopped the most was Prohibition – it really was interpreted by a large number of people as a restriction of their freedom. On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race or color, took decades to be enforced. Some feel that it is still not uniformly enforced in all States.
Let’s take a quick peek at some of the amendments I listed and see how they satisfy my four questions.
Marriage Protection Amendment
It could be argued that this defines a purpose of government, but that is a stretch. It really is an extension of the power of the federal government at the expense of individuals and the states.
The best comment I found was by Rep. Jim Davis of Florida. “Personally, I believe marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman; however, I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because I also believe the United States Constitution should protect rights, not deny them, and states should have the right to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognized within their borders.”
If it is to be considered an extension of people’s rights and a protection of marriage, then maybe the first sentence should read “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman and they shall be considered equal partners.”
Will it work? It certainly won’t prevent two men or two women living together.
Constitutional Rights for Victims
This amendment enjoys bi-partisan support. It essentially guarantees that victims of violent crimes be informed of proceedings against the accused, be allowed to heard at public proceedings, and be protected from further injury. It does have a loophole about restrictions “dictated … by compelling necessity.”
It definitely extends the rights of some people though others would say it limits the rights of the accused.
As to preserving checks and balances, the judiciary prefers a statutory approach to victims' rights over a constitutional amendment.
Religious Freedom
This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of amendments. In the guise of protecting freedom it extends the power of government to promote religion. The catch is the use of “people” instead of persons, such as in “The people retain the right to pray…” Does this mean that if the majority determines that a public gathering will have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim prayer, then the minority must sit quietly by while a prayer that they find offensive is given? Is the “people” a local government that will specify the prayers? Would an evangelical Christian be happy if all local government functions began with a Muslim prayer?
Special Elections/Appointment (Continuity of Government)
Naturalized Citizens for President
Natural Born Citizen Act
Direct Election of the President
These are the only amendments in my list that I think really satisfy all of the questions I posed. My only caveat is, will they work as intended or will they have some serious unintended consequences? The Continuity of Government is opposed by many representatives because it doesn’t guarantee quick elections to replace representatives. The Naturalized Citizen amendment is called the “Schwarzenegger Amendment” but it could apply equally to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born, Democratic governor of Michigan. The Natural Born act is more limiting in that applies to people whose citizen parents happened to be elsewhere at the time of their birth or to people who immigrated as children. Direct Election essentially abolishes the Electoral College.
Let’s hope that these four get more attention than the others and that Congress and the State legislatures deliberate them openly and honestly.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Quote of the dayl: Donald Trump and Constitution
"What Trump knows about history (or for that matter the Constitution) would not fill a Post-it note."
Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-02-28.
One could say the same about many members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
What I don't understand is that some of these judges are "originalists" and then put a different meaning into the text. Or all those in Congress who call themselves "conservatives" but are quite liberal with their reading of the Constitution.
Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-02-28.
One could say the same about many members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
What I don't understand is that some of these judges are "originalists" and then put a different meaning into the text. Or all those in Congress who call themselves "conservatives" but are quite liberal with their reading of the Constitution.
Friday, February 24, 2017
The world’s greatest deliberative body?
I’ve long thought that calling the U.S. Senate was an American conceit. Now we are seeing it as one of the world’s greatest political games. It is more fixed opinions than it is deliberative.
The polarization seems to grow by the day. Have all these Senators stopped reading the Constitution? Are they even paying attention when they have their ritual reading of “Washington’s Farewell Address”. Among the many admonitions are his warnings about “overgrown military establishments” and the forming of factions.
If Senators have already declared their positions on almost every issue, they are really putting lie to “deliberative body”.
For more on the Senatorial dysfunction, see “On the death of the world’s greatest deliberative body”, Paul Kane, Washington Post, 2017-01-31.
The polarization seems to grow by the day. Have all these Senators stopped reading the Constitution? Are they even paying attention when they have their ritual reading of “Washington’s Farewell Address”. Among the many admonitions are his warnings about “overgrown military establishments” and the forming of factions.
If Senators have already declared their positions on almost every issue, they are really putting lie to “deliberative body”.
For more on the Senatorial dysfunction, see “On the death of the world’s greatest deliberative body”, Paul Kane, Washington Post, 2017-01-31.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
It can happen here!
Many of us think that the Constitution protects us from a dictatorship. Unfortunately we are seeing signs of the possibility with Congress almost being in lockstep with the President and the Supreme Court becoming more subservient to the same ideology as the President and Congress.
Kurt Gödel, a mathematician and refugee from Hitler, studied the Constitution thoroughly in preparation for his citizenship. He saw a flaw that his friends cautioned him not to mention it in his hearing.
The examiner sympathetically mentioned that what was happening under Hitler couldn’t happen here. Gödel mentioned that he knew how it could. His friends managed to quiet him down and he became a citizen. See My Brain is Open by Paul Erdös.
How could it happen here? The Constitution can be amended. Could it be amended to give the President a life term, extend to the terms of Congress, abolish free speech,…?
Think of how much of the Constitution has already been corrupted by Supreme Court decisions: Corporations as people, people becoming persons,…
Think of how Republicans are working hard to suppress voting or dilute the effect of any opposition.
All that is needed is for a hard-nosed party to take absolute control of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Boom! There goes our Constitution.
Only you can prevent it. Vote thoughtfully in each and every election, from city council to state house to Congress to President. You are our only bulwark against our loss of freedom.
Kurt Gödel, a mathematician and refugee from Hitler, studied the Constitution thoroughly in preparation for his citizenship. He saw a flaw that his friends cautioned him not to mention it in his hearing.
The examiner sympathetically mentioned that what was happening under Hitler couldn’t happen here. Gödel mentioned that he knew how it could. His friends managed to quiet him down and he became a citizen. See My Brain is Open by Paul Erdös.
How could it happen here? The Constitution can be amended. Could it be amended to give the President a life term, extend to the terms of Congress, abolish free speech,…?
Think of how much of the Constitution has already been corrupted by Supreme Court decisions: Corporations as people, people becoming persons,…
Think of how Republicans are working hard to suppress voting or dilute the effect of any opposition.
All that is needed is for a hard-nosed party to take absolute control of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Boom! There goes our Constitution.
Only you can prevent it. Vote thoughtfully in each and every election, from city council to state house to Congress to President. You are our only bulwark against our loss of freedom.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Did George Washington warn us about Donald Trump?
When I posted “Does U.S. Senate follow advice it honors?” I didn’t explicitly connect Washington’s warning about one department (branch) of the government encroaching on another: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”
Trump seems to already have a lock-step Congress and will soon have a lock-step Supreme Court. If we are lucky, Neil Gorsuch will be another Earl Warren!
Trump seems to already have a lock-step Congress and will soon have a lock-step Supreme Court. If we are lucky, Neil Gorsuch will be another Earl Warren!
Monday, January 30, 2017
"Strict constructionist judges”?
"'Strict construction' is a manner of interpreting the U.S. Constitution using a literal and narrow definition of language in the document without regard to changes that have occurred in American society since the 18th century document was written.”
- "Trump to Nominate 'Strict Constructionist' to Supreme Court", New York Times, 2017-01-26
I find that it strange that “strict constructionists” manage to interpret “We the People” as “We the Corporations”, to interpret that Congress has no right to regulate commerce among the states, and to interpret that “the people” in the second amendment means persons.
Will one of these "strict constructionists" strike down any anti-Muslim actions by Trump? Remember all those "Christians" who want their freedom to discriminate. If these judges were “strict constructionists” they would rule that people are free to believe what they want, but they can’t practice whatever they want when it impinges on others.
Will one of these “strict constructionists” stop Trump if he goes to war without the approval of Congress?
If you read George Washington’s “Farewell Address”, you will find a lot about the “intent” of the Founders and how much governments (of whatever party) have not followed the “intent” very well. See “George Washington: Ignored Father of His Country".
If you can, watch a movie on John Marshall, an early Chief Justice, who struggled with many of these questions.
- "Trump to Nominate 'Strict Constructionist' to Supreme Court", New York Times, 2017-01-26
I find that it strange that “strict constructionists” manage to interpret “We the People” as “We the Corporations”, to interpret that Congress has no right to regulate commerce among the states, and to interpret that “the people” in the second amendment means persons.
Will one of these "strict constructionists" strike down any anti-Muslim actions by Trump? Remember all those "Christians" who want their freedom to discriminate. If these judges were “strict constructionists” they would rule that people are free to believe what they want, but they can’t practice whatever they want when it impinges on others.
Will one of these “strict constructionists” stop Trump if he goes to war without the approval of Congress?
If you read George Washington’s “Farewell Address”, you will find a lot about the “intent” of the Founders and how much governments (of whatever party) have not followed the “intent” very well. See “George Washington: Ignored Father of His Country".
If you can, watch a movie on John Marshall, an early Chief Justice, who struggled with many of these questions.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Best Congress money can buy
An example of how Congress is the best that money can buy is “Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule."
In other words corporate profits are more important than clean, safe drinking water for people downstream of mines.
It is ironic that the party who claims to be “originalist" concerning the Constitution completely ignores anything that hampers corporate profits.
For example, Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Hm! Streams turn into rivers that go through many states. Isn’t polluting a stream that goes into a river in another state “commerce among the states”.
In other words corporate profits are more important than clean, safe drinking water for people downstream of mines.
It is ironic that the party who claims to be “originalist" concerning the Constitution completely ignores anything that hampers corporate profits.
For example, Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Hm! Streams turn into rivers that go through many states. Isn’t polluting a stream that goes into a river in another state “commerce among the states”.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Activist right-wing judges
Thanks for "activist right-wing judges". First "people" became "persons" (Second Amendment) and then "corporations became "persons" (Preamble). Will "four-year term" become lifetime next?
Comment to scottluack’s comment on “The Supreme Court’s Next Gun Battle”, Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, 2017-01-19, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-next-gun-battle.html?comments#permid=21145325:21147064.
Comment to scottluack’s comment on “The Supreme Court’s Next Gun Battle”, Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, 2017-01-19, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-next-gun-battle.html?comments#permid=21145325:21147064.
Saturday, January 07, 2017
Quote of the day: corporation interest in strong dollar
"The reason that our government doesn’t intervene to push down the value of the dollar is that powerful U.S. transnational corporations like Wal-Mart prefer a strong dollar because it makes imports and overseas labor cheaper for them.”
“Will Trump outdo Obama in handling US-China: No: Even before taking office, Trump has made a mess”
- Mark Weisbrot, Duluth News Tribune, 2016-01-07
The “other side” is “Yes: His policies will protect our allies, economy, citizens from Chinese bullying”
- Pete Hoekstra
Why does so much writing, politics, and whatever have to be either/or? There are so many more considerations than “either side” puts forth.
In support of Weisbrot, I’d cite “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Also, Republicans have turned the Constitution upside down so many times; in this case they have replaced Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states to commerce having the power to regulate Congress!!
I wonder if any other democratic nation has as many “pariah” states as the United States: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Yet we support many broken or rigid states far worse than Iran.
“Will Trump outdo Obama in handling US-China: No: Even before taking office, Trump has made a mess”
- Mark Weisbrot, Duluth News Tribune, 2016-01-07
The “other side” is “Yes: His policies will protect our allies, economy, citizens from Chinese bullying”
- Pete Hoekstra
Why does so much writing, politics, and whatever have to be either/or? There are so many more considerations than “either side” puts forth.
In support of Weisbrot, I’d cite “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Also, Republicans have turned the Constitution upside down so many times; in this case they have replaced Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states to commerce having the power to regulate Congress!!
I wonder if any other democratic nation has as many “pariah” states as the United States: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Yet we support many broken or rigid states far worse than Iran.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Trump has “no conflict of interest”
Well, well, the President and Vice-President are exempt from conflict of interest laws. See “Fact Checker: Trump’s claim that ‘the president can’t have a conflict of interest’”, Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Washington Post, 2016-11-23.
“And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Excerpt From: Edward Samuel Corwin. “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.” iBooks
The article pointed out that Congress has excepted the President and Vice-President from this clause "on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.”
“And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Excerpt From: Edward Samuel Corwin. “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.” iBooks
The article pointed out that Congress has excepted the President and Vice-President from this clause "on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.”
Thursday, November 17, 2016
More on the Electoral College
For a different view than I gave in “Why we have our electoral mess”, see J. Craig Scherf, "Electoral College maintains one of Constitution’s checks and balances" Duluth News Tribune, 2106-11-15.
Times have changed since the Constitution was written. Then the voters were male property owners. Their interests were in protecting their property, whether it was real estate or slaves. They felt that they could best protect their property by state laws, not federal laws.
But the interests of the states as property protectors has diminished in several ways.
Many of us are not fixed or even interested in our states as defenders of all of our interests.
Those of us who are property owners might change property for a variety of reasons. We might want a bigger or smaller residence. We might want to move from a rural area to a city or vice versa. Or we might move out of state, something that seems to happening more frequently as people change jobs within a company or get a job in a different company.
I have lived in three states and three foreign countries.
I grew up in Cleveland OH and in surrounding areas. I have not lived in Ohio for 53 years. When the Cleveland Indians were in the World Series, I could care less!
I have lived in Minnesota for 42 years. Do I know what the state song is? What the state flag looks like? I probably know more U.S. and world history than I do Minnesota history.
Our state lives get even more complicated. How many people live in one state but work in another? Duluth-Superior? New York City with commuters from three states: New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut? Philadelphia with Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. I myself commuted from an exurb west of Philadelphia, through Philadelphia, and on to Cherry Hill NJ. Chicago also has commuters from three states: Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.
And don’t forget that there are many reverse commuters who go from the central city to jobs outside the city, especially as more and more companies build facilities outside the central city.
Many of these commuters have no real property, they rent their living spaces. So, where do their local loyalties lie: where they live or where they work. They only get input into the laws that affect where they work is through federal law, not state laws. The only way they have input into the affairs of the state in which they work is through personal contact with acquaintances who are residents of their work state or letters to the editor of the regional newspaper.
The electoral college could give our co-workers more or less clout in an election than we have. The Delaware resident who works in Philadelphia had a greater weighted Electoral College vote than his or her colleagues who live in Pennsylvania! It’s almost like saying that short people have more votes than tall people!
"Would we truly want large regional majorities from the two coasts to alone choose our president? The system of checks and balances left to us by the Founders is the surest guarantee of protecting minority rights that we have.” - J. Craig Scherf
But do we want small regional electoral majorities to take away the rights of the majority of the whole nation?
Times have changed since the Constitution was written. Then the voters were male property owners. Their interests were in protecting their property, whether it was real estate or slaves. They felt that they could best protect their property by state laws, not federal laws.
But the interests of the states as property protectors has diminished in several ways.
Many of us are not fixed or even interested in our states as defenders of all of our interests.
Those of us who are property owners might change property for a variety of reasons. We might want a bigger or smaller residence. We might want to move from a rural area to a city or vice versa. Or we might move out of state, something that seems to happening more frequently as people change jobs within a company or get a job in a different company.
I have lived in three states and three foreign countries.
I grew up in Cleveland OH and in surrounding areas. I have not lived in Ohio for 53 years. When the Cleveland Indians were in the World Series, I could care less!
I have lived in Minnesota for 42 years. Do I know what the state song is? What the state flag looks like? I probably know more U.S. and world history than I do Minnesota history.
Our state lives get even more complicated. How many people live in one state but work in another? Duluth-Superior? New York City with commuters from three states: New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut? Philadelphia with Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. I myself commuted from an exurb west of Philadelphia, through Philadelphia, and on to Cherry Hill NJ. Chicago also has commuters from three states: Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.
And don’t forget that there are many reverse commuters who go from the central city to jobs outside the city, especially as more and more companies build facilities outside the central city.
Many of these commuters have no real property, they rent their living spaces. So, where do their local loyalties lie: where they live or where they work. They only get input into the laws that affect where they work is through federal law, not state laws. The only way they have input into the affairs of the state in which they work is through personal contact with acquaintances who are residents of their work state or letters to the editor of the regional newspaper.
The electoral college could give our co-workers more or less clout in an election than we have. The Delaware resident who works in Philadelphia had a greater weighted Electoral College vote than his or her colleagues who live in Pennsylvania! It’s almost like saying that short people have more votes than tall people!
"Would we truly want large regional majorities from the two coasts to alone choose our president? The system of checks and balances left to us by the Founders is the surest guarantee of protecting minority rights that we have.” - J. Craig Scherf
But do we want small regional electoral majorities to take away the rights of the majority of the whole nation?
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Gun rights vs. property rights, a conundrum for "conservatives"
'Tis hunting season in Minnesota. Right now it is deer season and we can hear gunshots now and then. I hope they were all on federal land to the south of us.
Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep). Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.
Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing. In some other counties one can buy land maps. Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.
Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?
Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway. Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?
This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.
I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.
Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep). Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.
Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing. In some other counties one can buy land maps. Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.
Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?
Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway. Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?
This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.
I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
A flimsy attack on clean air
I submitted the following comment to the New York Times, article "A flimsy attack on clean air" but as far as I know it was not published.
"The Congress shall have the Power to...regulate Commerce...among the several States... U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
Maybe the polluters have a case if ALL of their pollution stays within their own state. However to do so, they'll probably have to dam rivers and stop the winds. But since these flow into other states...
"The Congress shall have the Power to...regulate Commerce...among the several States... U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
Maybe the polluters have a case if ALL of their pollution stays within their own state. However to do so, they'll probably have to dam rivers and stop the winds. But since these flow into other states...
Robert Reich predicted the likes of Donald Trump
"[People] think if the big guys cheat in big ways, they might as well begin cheating in small ways. And when they think the game is rigged, they're easy prey for political demagogues with fast tongues and dumb ideas.
- Robert Reich, Beyond Outrage, 2012
In Beyond Outrage Reich also pointed out that "Conservatives" don't conserve much. He wrote they are regressives who want to return to a time when very few were very, very well-off and most had to struggle to make a living, often in dangerous, unhealthy conditions.
He didn't spell it out in detail but "conservatives" sure don't want to conserve resources, clean air, or even a well-functioning government. "Conservatives" are certainly "liberal" in interpreting the Constitution to their ends, "liberal" at "throwing money" at the military, and "liberal" in awarding generous compensation to those at the top of large corporations, even those who really screw up the company.
- Robert Reich, Beyond Outrage, 2012
In Beyond Outrage Reich also pointed out that "Conservatives" don't conserve much. He wrote they are regressives who want to return to a time when very few were very, very well-off and most had to struggle to make a living, often in dangerous, unhealthy conditions.
He didn't spell it out in detail but "conservatives" sure don't want to conserve resources, clean air, or even a well-functioning government. "Conservatives" are certainly "liberal" in interpreting the Constitution to their ends, "liberal" at "throwing money" at the military, and "liberal" in awarding generous compensation to those at the top of large corporations, even those who really screw up the company.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Problem of conservative/liberal labeling
We see too much about liberal bias against conservatives and conservative bias against liberals. But do we even know what a conservative or liberal is?
Are those who think billionaires should be free to run their companies without any government interference liberals or conservatives? They are certainly "liberal" in their interpretation of the Constitution. The true conservatives are those who believe the Constitution's power to the Congress to "regulate commerce among the states".
Are those who think the Constitution starts with "We the People" means persons as a collective liberal or conservative? It seems that so-called conservatives are rather liberal in interpreting the opening clause as "We the Corporations".
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about liberals and conservatives in academia. For some of the letters in response see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/politics-and-academia.html.
If "conservatives" have a problem being accepted into academia it may be because they are not open to change. A true academic is a liberal-conservative: liberal in open to new views and conservative in evaluating evidence.
Are those who think billionaires should be free to run their companies without any government interference liberals or conservatives? They are certainly "liberal" in their interpretation of the Constitution. The true conservatives are those who believe the Constitution's power to the Congress to "regulate commerce among the states".
Are those who think the Constitution starts with "We the People" means persons as a collective liberal or conservative? It seems that so-called conservatives are rather liberal in interpreting the opening clause as "We the Corporations".
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about liberals and conservatives in academia. For some of the letters in response see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/politics-and-academia.html.
If "conservatives" have a problem being accepted into academia it may be because they are not open to change. A true academic is a liberal-conservative: liberal in open to new views and conservative in evaluating evidence.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Advice to Bernie Sanders
I sent $25 to the Bernie Sanders campaign a few weeks ago, and now I am bombarded with requests for money and volunteer calling. I decided that the campaign could use my "advice" more. So, I sent the following to info@BernieSanders.com in response to the message: "I will be with Bernie as long as he is willing to fight". I wonder if any of it will percolate up to the great man.
Bernie has a whole arsenal to use: the actual contents of documents that the billionaires and their lackeys misrepresent.
Adam Smith only used "free market" once, and that was the wool merchants kept the price of wool down by legislative means.
Adam Smith said that "This order of men is not to be trusted..." These were those who lived by profit.
Adam Smith's invisible hand really is a variation of the law of unintended consequences. He did not state that either man succeeded, only that the outcomes did not necessarily match their intentions.
The billionaires ignore much of the constitution. What part of Congress having the power to "regulate commerce" among the states don't they understand? Isn't sending pollution to another state commerce among the states?
What part of "no religious test" don't they understand?
In his "Farewell Address" George Washington warned about foreign entanglements and admonished his reader to pay their taxes.
If you can find an expert on the Federalist Papers, he or she can give you lots of ideas to counter the selfish who have no sense of community.
I can't find my reference, but a true free market is
Many buyers and sellers,
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market,
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision,
There are no externalities.
Finally, avoid any questioning of the personal integrity. Providing honest definitions of their pronouncements should do quite well for "hoisting them on their own petards."
For other ideas, see mdmagree.blogspot.com.
I didn’t mention that he should also remind the Republicans of the warning given by the last great Republican President: Dwight David Eisenhower; the military-industrial complex. Now Ike’s party as been taken over by the military-industrial complex.
Bernie has a whole arsenal to use: the actual contents of documents that the billionaires and their lackeys misrepresent.
Adam Smith only used "free market" once, and that was the wool merchants kept the price of wool down by legislative means.
Adam Smith said that "This order of men is not to be trusted..." These were those who lived by profit.
Adam Smith's invisible hand really is a variation of the law of unintended consequences. He did not state that either man succeeded, only that the outcomes did not necessarily match their intentions.
The billionaires ignore much of the constitution. What part of Congress having the power to "regulate commerce" among the states don't they understand? Isn't sending pollution to another state commerce among the states?
What part of "no religious test" don't they understand?
In his "Farewell Address" George Washington warned about foreign entanglements and admonished his reader to pay their taxes.
If you can find an expert on the Federalist Papers, he or she can give you lots of ideas to counter the selfish who have no sense of community.
I can't find my reference, but a true free market is
Many buyers and sellers,
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market,
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision,
There are no externalities.
Finally, avoid any questioning of the personal integrity. Providing honest definitions of their pronouncements should do quite well for "hoisting them on their own petards."
For other ideas, see mdmagree.blogspot.com.
I didn’t mention that he should also remind the Republicans of the warning given by the last great Republican President: Dwight David Eisenhower; the military-industrial complex. Now Ike’s party as been taken over by the military-industrial complex.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Iconoclastic ideas (or mysteries)
“I would love to talk to people, and say ‘Why do you need so much money?’ And why do people say it’s so admirable? I think the world has gone quite mad.” - John Cleese as reported by Lee Schafer, Star Tribune, 2016-02-17.
I haven’t yet gone back to “Dark Money”, the book I mentioned last week, but I keep wondering why so many exorbitantly rich have so much money to slosh around that they spend exorbitant sums to ensure that they get even more. When one has hundreds of billions of dollars, what’s a hundred billion or two less?
What is galling is that many claim they earned it, every penny. But how many people worked for a pittance or even a decent salary to create and implement the ideas to earn this money? Often several thousand people showed up every day to bring in that money while the billionaire was jetting here and there on vacation or attending a conference to rail against taxes and government, the same taxes and the same government that subsidizes many of their enterprises. For example, I’ve seen estimates that every Walmart store costs government entities one million dollars a year.
Many who want strict adherence to the Constitution seem to forget "Regulate commerce among states" and "establish a post office”.
The Republicans and their giant-corp backers are doing their best to nullify the EPA rule about emissions. Are these polluters keeping their emissions in the state where they are produced? If any of these emissions go to another state, then the President is right to regulate this commerce in emissions.
The Republicans seem to be bending over backwards to dis-establish the Post Office. The latest gimmick was to impose far greater requirements on pension funding than many corporations get by with. The last I looked my Unisys pension was funded at 77 percent. I exaggerate, but it seems like the Republicans want the Postal Service to be fully-funded on pensions for employees who have not even been hired yet.
I really don’t know what a “fair share” of taxes is, but it is a mystery how many people want perfect infra-structure, immediate arrest of all criminals, and bombing of countries far, far away but do not want to pay any taxes for any of these. Is there a correlation between complaints about government and complaints about burdensome taxes?
A good case in point is the following headline: “Wisconsin crackdown on repeat drunken drivers will cost taxpayers”, Mark Sommerhauser, Wisconsin State Journal, published in the Duluth News Tribune, 2016-02-19. Duh!? What is the cost to taxpayers of the death and destruction caused by drunken drivers? I submit that it is quite a bit higher than the cost of the crackdown. In other words, spend what seems too much to prevent something that costs even more. Even that crackdown on fourth offenders may be too soft. Sweden had or maybe still has tough drunk driving laws: first offense was two years in jail, even for members of Parliament.
Why does Clinton have to be president so we finally have a woman president? Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren are much better choices, but neither seems to be interested.
Why do we have reach out across (fill-in the blank) lines? Can’t we just be nice to everybody. I hold doors for others, they hold doors for me. Rodney King said, “Can’t we all just get along.”
We do have to reform or at least neutralize people who judge people by factors which have nothing to do with a given situation.
Right now many established and respected media are giving misleading information. Clinton “won” in Nevada and Trump “won” in South Carolina. I posted a comment on a New York Times article; the article made no reference to the actual delegates gained. Sorry, I didn’t note the article. Interestingly, my comment was not posted for all to see. At least, as I write this hours later, I have not been emailed that my comment was posted.
Well, Trump did win in South Carolina because the South Carolina Republican primary is winner take-all. He “won” with less than a third of the vote. However, in Nevada, Clinton received 22 delegates and Sanders received 16 delegates. Oops, another source gives 19-15, and yet another shows a spread of about 600 votes. Sorry, I’m visiting so many sites to get to the truth that I have forgotten where I found which figures. Clinton does have an advantage because of super-delegates, elected and party officials who are automatically delegates to the convention. The super-delegates are overwhelmingly pro-Clinton.
One of these sources was “How many delegates do Trump, Clinton need to win? What's the delegate count for each candidate?” by Jonathan D. Salant at http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/how_many_delegates_do_hillary_clinton_and_donald_t.html.
Let's skip caucuses and primaries and even do away with political parties. Even though the writers of the Constitution warned about factions, they soon split into them. The most famous being the long feud between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Let’s start at the local level. Let each registered voter send in a nomination for each position by email or mail. Rank the nominations by number of votes; those who are in the top half of the list go on to the next ballot. Repeat as necessary until one is chosen. Named candidates can drop out at any time.
Some may say that this is too expensive and subject to fraud. Isn’t the low turnout expensive to our society? Supposedly we already have too much fraud if you believe those who demand onerous restrictions on voting.
The only vote that doesn’t count is the vote not cast.
Also in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-02-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/25/6797_iconoclastic_ideas_or_mysteries.
I haven’t yet gone back to “Dark Money”, the book I mentioned last week, but I keep wondering why so many exorbitantly rich have so much money to slosh around that they spend exorbitant sums to ensure that they get even more. When one has hundreds of billions of dollars, what’s a hundred billion or two less?
What is galling is that many claim they earned it, every penny. But how many people worked for a pittance or even a decent salary to create and implement the ideas to earn this money? Often several thousand people showed up every day to bring in that money while the billionaire was jetting here and there on vacation or attending a conference to rail against taxes and government, the same taxes and the same government that subsidizes many of their enterprises. For example, I’ve seen estimates that every Walmart store costs government entities one million dollars a year.
Many who want strict adherence to the Constitution seem to forget "Regulate commerce among states" and "establish a post office”.
The Republicans and their giant-corp backers are doing their best to nullify the EPA rule about emissions. Are these polluters keeping their emissions in the state where they are produced? If any of these emissions go to another state, then the President is right to regulate this commerce in emissions.
The Republicans seem to be bending over backwards to dis-establish the Post Office. The latest gimmick was to impose far greater requirements on pension funding than many corporations get by with. The last I looked my Unisys pension was funded at 77 percent. I exaggerate, but it seems like the Republicans want the Postal Service to be fully-funded on pensions for employees who have not even been hired yet.
I really don’t know what a “fair share” of taxes is, but it is a mystery how many people want perfect infra-structure, immediate arrest of all criminals, and bombing of countries far, far away but do not want to pay any taxes for any of these. Is there a correlation between complaints about government and complaints about burdensome taxes?
A good case in point is the following headline: “Wisconsin crackdown on repeat drunken drivers will cost taxpayers”, Mark Sommerhauser, Wisconsin State Journal, published in the Duluth News Tribune, 2016-02-19. Duh!? What is the cost to taxpayers of the death and destruction caused by drunken drivers? I submit that it is quite a bit higher than the cost of the crackdown. In other words, spend what seems too much to prevent something that costs even more. Even that crackdown on fourth offenders may be too soft. Sweden had or maybe still has tough drunk driving laws: first offense was two years in jail, even for members of Parliament.
Why does Clinton have to be president so we finally have a woman president? Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren are much better choices, but neither seems to be interested.
Why do we have reach out across (fill-in the blank) lines? Can’t we just be nice to everybody. I hold doors for others, they hold doors for me. Rodney King said, “Can’t we all just get along.”
We do have to reform or at least neutralize people who judge people by factors which have nothing to do with a given situation.
Right now many established and respected media are giving misleading information. Clinton “won” in Nevada and Trump “won” in South Carolina. I posted a comment on a New York Times article; the article made no reference to the actual delegates gained. Sorry, I didn’t note the article. Interestingly, my comment was not posted for all to see. At least, as I write this hours later, I have not been emailed that my comment was posted.
Well, Trump did win in South Carolina because the South Carolina Republican primary is winner take-all. He “won” with less than a third of the vote. However, in Nevada, Clinton received 22 delegates and Sanders received 16 delegates. Oops, another source gives 19-15, and yet another shows a spread of about 600 votes. Sorry, I’m visiting so many sites to get to the truth that I have forgotten where I found which figures. Clinton does have an advantage because of super-delegates, elected and party officials who are automatically delegates to the convention. The super-delegates are overwhelmingly pro-Clinton.
One of these sources was “How many delegates do Trump, Clinton need to win? What's the delegate count for each candidate?” by Jonathan D. Salant at http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/how_many_delegates_do_hillary_clinton_and_donald_t.html.
Let's skip caucuses and primaries and even do away with political parties. Even though the writers of the Constitution warned about factions, they soon split into them. The most famous being the long feud between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Let’s start at the local level. Let each registered voter send in a nomination for each position by email or mail. Rank the nominations by number of votes; those who are in the top half of the list go on to the next ballot. Repeat as necessary until one is chosen. Named candidates can drop out at any time.
Some may say that this is too expensive and subject to fraud. Isn’t the low turnout expensive to our society? Supposedly we already have too much fraud if you believe those who demand onerous restrictions on voting.
The only vote that doesn’t count is the vote not cast.
Also in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-02-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/25/6797_iconoclastic_ideas_or_mysteries.
Friday, February 05, 2016
TRUTH or truth?
TRUTH is what some assert with certainty but with no coherent justification. TRUTH cannot be challenged.
Truth is what people strive for with questions and tests; truth may never be fully achieved but enough has been discovered to offer a guide to life or improvement of lives.
One TRUTH is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The truth is that the Bible offers many moral teachings even though it contains descriptions of many impossible events or even justifies bad deeds.
Did God on the sixth day create “man in his own image, … male and female created he them”? Or did he create only Adam and then when Adam grew lonely, he created Eve from Adam’s rib. I would think it would take more than a few days for Adam to grow lonely for a companion.
Is the “Great Flood” a recounting of some catastrophic flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in which some few had the foresight to build boats for their family and cattle, or was it a great flood to destroy all the “wickedness”, including babies? Considering that the depth of the waters was 15 cubits (22-1/2 feet), it was probably the former. Flood stages of over 20 feet are all too common even now. The truth is that it is important to be just and that it is important to prepare for disaster.
Is it TRUTH that God let Satan bring many calamities upon Job, or is it truth that bad things happen to good people? Certainly a just God would not let so many innocent people be killed to test one man, especially if God knows everything?
Is it TRUTH that heretics should be burned at the stake? It is truth that the Bible only mentions “heretic” once. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Epistle to Titus, 3:10). I don’t think “reject” meant to kill, but rather it meant to shun.
Is it TRUTH that Islam is a militant religion set on converting all to Islam? It is truth that Mohammed and his followers had to defend themselves against the polytheists of Mecca who considered the Muslims a threat. It is also truth that many Muslim-dominant cultures had a mix of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
“Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabeans - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and act righteously will have their reward with their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.” - Talal Itani. “Quran In English. Modern English Translation. Clear and Easy to Understand”.
The Sabeans were a culture in South Arabia; this is supposedly where the Queen of Sheba came from, she who visited King Solomon.
You can get many versions of the Qur’an from the iBook store and other sources. However, like the Bible, it takes much reading to understand what is meant.
Consider “simple” documents like the “Declaration of Independence” and the “Constitution”.
Is it TRUTH that they are clear and unambiguous? It is truth that people are still arguing over them over two hundred years later. It is truth that what one Supreme Court decides may be overturned by another Supreme Court? For example, “Separate but Equal” was overturned by “Brown vs. Board of Education”.
Is it TRUTH that the United States is a Christian nation blessed by God? It is truth that many of the signers of the “Declaration of Independence” or the “Constitution of the United States” attended Christian Churches. It is truth that the “Declaration of Independence” mentions “Nature’s God” and the “Protection of Divine Providence”. But it is also truth that the “Constitution” uses no words or phrases involving any deity. It is truth that the United States took land from Christian Cherokees and others because white men wanted the gold that was found in Georgia. So much for the “Protection of Divine Providence” for these Christians.
Is it TRUTH that Adam Smith advocated totally free markets? It is truth that he used “free market” once and only once in “Wealth of Nations”. But it is also truth that the heavily regulated market was brought about by the woolen manufacturers. They asked for and received from Parliament many regulations that would keep the price of wool down so that their costs would be down and their profits up. It is also truth that even today “Free Marketers” lobby for laws that are beneficial to them and detrimental to others.
Is it TRUTH that voters “decided”? By the time you read this, the Iowa caucuses will have been held. It is truth that many voters cast their votes for whoever “won”, but many other voters chose somebody else. It is truth that better headlines would be that “a plurality of voters” or “a majority of voters” supported the “winner”.
It is also truth that no matter who is doing the reporting, they have a limited amount of time or space.
It is also truth that this column should end before you fall asleep.
Also published in Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2016-02-04 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/04/6677_truth_or_truth.
Truth is what people strive for with questions and tests; truth may never be fully achieved but enough has been discovered to offer a guide to life or improvement of lives.
One TRUTH is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The truth is that the Bible offers many moral teachings even though it contains descriptions of many impossible events or even justifies bad deeds.
Did God on the sixth day create “man in his own image, … male and female created he them”? Or did he create only Adam and then when Adam grew lonely, he created Eve from Adam’s rib. I would think it would take more than a few days for Adam to grow lonely for a companion.
Is the “Great Flood” a recounting of some catastrophic flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in which some few had the foresight to build boats for their family and cattle, or was it a great flood to destroy all the “wickedness”, including babies? Considering that the depth of the waters was 15 cubits (22-1/2 feet), it was probably the former. Flood stages of over 20 feet are all too common even now. The truth is that it is important to be just and that it is important to prepare for disaster.
Is it TRUTH that God let Satan bring many calamities upon Job, or is it truth that bad things happen to good people? Certainly a just God would not let so many innocent people be killed to test one man, especially if God knows everything?
Is it TRUTH that heretics should be burned at the stake? It is truth that the Bible only mentions “heretic” once. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Epistle to Titus, 3:10). I don’t think “reject” meant to kill, but rather it meant to shun.
Is it TRUTH that Islam is a militant religion set on converting all to Islam? It is truth that Mohammed and his followers had to defend themselves against the polytheists of Mecca who considered the Muslims a threat. It is also truth that many Muslim-dominant cultures had a mix of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
“Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabeans - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and act righteously will have their reward with their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.” - Talal Itani. “Quran In English. Modern English Translation. Clear and Easy to Understand”.
The Sabeans were a culture in South Arabia; this is supposedly where the Queen of Sheba came from, she who visited King Solomon.
You can get many versions of the Qur’an from the iBook store and other sources. However, like the Bible, it takes much reading to understand what is meant.
Consider “simple” documents like the “Declaration of Independence” and the “Constitution”.
Is it TRUTH that they are clear and unambiguous? It is truth that people are still arguing over them over two hundred years later. It is truth that what one Supreme Court decides may be overturned by another Supreme Court? For example, “Separate but Equal” was overturned by “Brown vs. Board of Education”.
Is it TRUTH that the United States is a Christian nation blessed by God? It is truth that many of the signers of the “Declaration of Independence” or the “Constitution of the United States” attended Christian Churches. It is truth that the “Declaration of Independence” mentions “Nature’s God” and the “Protection of Divine Providence”. But it is also truth that the “Constitution” uses no words or phrases involving any deity. It is truth that the United States took land from Christian Cherokees and others because white men wanted the gold that was found in Georgia. So much for the “Protection of Divine Providence” for these Christians.
Is it TRUTH that Adam Smith advocated totally free markets? It is truth that he used “free market” once and only once in “Wealth of Nations”. But it is also truth that the heavily regulated market was brought about by the woolen manufacturers. They asked for and received from Parliament many regulations that would keep the price of wool down so that their costs would be down and their profits up. It is also truth that even today “Free Marketers” lobby for laws that are beneficial to them and detrimental to others.
Is it TRUTH that voters “decided”? By the time you read this, the Iowa caucuses will have been held. It is truth that many voters cast their votes for whoever “won”, but many other voters chose somebody else. It is truth that better headlines would be that “a plurality of voters” or “a majority of voters” supported the “winner”.
It is also truth that no matter who is doing the reporting, they have a limited amount of time or space.
It is also truth that this column should end before you fall asleep.
Also published in Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2016-02-04 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/04/6677_truth_or_truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)