What is mainstream?

I was wondering today what constitutes mainstream.  You hear politicians, pundits, the media, and others all talk about mainstream America.  When this is used, they are usually talking about what they consider to be views that are somewhat consistent with themselves.  After all, they can't really be talking about anything else...can they?  Is there some kind of mainstream out there upon which a politician or someone in the media can cling to in order to justify their positions?  How would one define mainstream even?  I don't know, but it seems to me that mainstream constitutes something upon which at 50.1 percent of Americans can agree on. The dictionary states that mainstream is "the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend". Therefore, I see many things in our society where one could call something mainstream...things in pop culture...slang...etc.  However, politics and political positions don't seem to be one of these things.  So, I did a little research.

One of the first articles I found was this one.  It is an article discussing a Gallup Poll on the political leanings of Americans.  It is flawed in one glaring aspect.  It only condsiders those who self identify as conservative, liberal, or moderate and only those who self identify with Republicans, Democrats or as Independents.  However, it is a very interesting starting point for my research.

So...it seems that, as of 2011, Americans self identify as 40 percent conservative, 35 percent moderate and 21 percent liberal.  Does this give us a "mainstream"?  With 300 million Americans, this means that 120 million Americans identify as conservative, 105 million as moderate and 63 million as liberal.  However, this still doesn't give us a 50.1 percent anything.  One could argue, based on this, that there isn't a mainstream, or at least there certainly isn't a liberal mainstream, but there is more to this than that, isn't there?  After all, do these identifications translate to political affiliations?  What is the number of Republicans, Democrats, true independents, Socialists, Communists, Libertarians, Anarchists, etc.?

A Rasmussen poll, here, sheds some light on this question.  As of April 2012, this poll shows that 35 percent of Americans identify as Republicans, 33 as Democrats, and 32 percent are unaffiliated with either party.  Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us much about the unaffiliated group, which I think would shed a huge amount of light onto the question of mainstream.  Obviously, neither party can claim to be mainstream.  After all, while the Republicans currently have a slight edge, Democrats have historically had an edge.  None of that really means anything though because the unaffiliated group has just as much power, as a block, as either of the two parties since it has just as many people.  Therefore, there is no way either party can claim the mainstream.

Then there is this interesting tidbit.  USAToday actually looked at the registered voters in the various states and found that there are 42 million registered Democrats, 30 million registered Republicans and 24 million registered independents.  In 2008, there were nearly 228 million Americans of voting age.  Accounting for various reasons why someone couldn't vote (they've been convicted of a felony, etc.), I'll round down to about 220 million.  That means that only 96 million are registered?  Probably not, because a lot of states allow you to register as "unaffiliated" which isn't the same as "independent".  However, not knowing USAToday's methodology, it is possible that this is what that means.  This is why it is important to look at "registered voter" numbers at election time rather than overall numbers.  However, this is a rather poor indicator of our political system.  Consider this.  In 2008, there were 220 million people who were eligible to vote.  Of those people, 69.5 million voted for Obama, 60 million voted for McCain and 2 million voted for some form of "other".  Therefore, 132 million people voted, give or take.  That's about a voter turnout of 60 percent.  The official number for that year is 58.3 percent.  This is rather interesting.  It seems the one thing we can say exists in the mainstream politically is that a majority of people vote.  But that isn't saying much.  When you analyze these numbers, it means that nearly 42 percent of the people who can vote, decided it was too much hassle to bother.  That means, rather than Obama getting 53 percent and McCain getting 46 percent, it should really look something more like this:

Obama                         31.6%
McCain                        27%
Other                            .01%
Not participating           41.39%

So, we can't even get mainstream here.

It seems to me that whenever you hear someone talking about the opposition not being mainstream or themselves being mainstream, you can almost certainly know that they are lying.  The one thing that someone might be able to say is that a particular position is mainstream.  No political party or ideology can claim to be mainstream.  They may claim historical realities or precedents, but they can't claim mainstream.

So, what is mainstream?  Let's look at a few individual positions as examples of what could constitute mainstream America.  A Gallup poll found that 50% of Americans identify as pro-life while only 41% identify as pro-choice.  That could suggest that the mainstream is actually anti-abortion.  Of course, I don't think anything that is this close could constitute mainstream, but that's just me.  However, this doesn't tell the whole story.  The same poll found that 51% think abortion is morally wrong while 38% find it morally acceptable.  That is close to how people self identify.  More from this poll shows something even more interesting.  It seems that only 20% believe abortion should always be illegal, 25% think it should be legal in all cases for any reason, and 52% think it should be legal under "certain circumstances".  In other words, 52% said there may be at least one justifiable reason for abortion, but abortion at any time for any reason or banned outright is not acceptable.  Therefore, I'd say you do have something mainstream here.  The mainstream is clearly a compromise position.  Sure, 72% are opposed to abortion on demand, which is why you'll hear abortion supporting politicians say things like "it should be rare but legal" because they also know these numbers and that  77% think it should be legal in some form or another.

Another issue to look at could be the war in Afghanistan.  What is the "mainstream" on that topic?  Well, it seems that 59% of Americans believe going there was the right thing to do, with 35% believing it was the wrong thing to do and 6% undecided.  This shows a clear trend that people still support going into Afghanistan.  However, this gets a little bit more dicey when it comes to whether we should continue to be there now.  24% say we should follow the current 2014 withdrawal timeline while 21% think we shouldn't have any timeline at all and remain there until the mission is accomplished.  This includes 4% who are undecided as well as 50% who think we should withdraw faster than the established 2014 date.  So, that means that 74% favor withdraw now or in 2014 or somewhere in between while only 21% think we should stay.  So...we support the war, but we support withdrawal.  Okay, there goes a typically wishy washy outcome to complex issues.

And there you have it.  The real reason there is no mainstream America is because issues are complex, not cut and dried.  This is part of human nature as well.  Nonetheless, we might be able to form consensus on issues if we didn't have politics getting in the way, but as long as there are only two dominant political parties and as long as we insist on categorizing everyone into the conservative, liberal and independent ideologies without having a real understanding of the nuances involved, we will never be able to move away from the partisanship and the deadlocked bickering that exists in Washington.

What are you?

It seems to me that many, if not most, people don't actually know where they fit in terms of what they believe politically.  They seem to have a vague understanding of concepts, but do not have a full grasp of issues.  This makes them very malleable for a politician.  It has been said that "unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything."  This can be no more true than in the realm of politics.  How many people really know what they believe and why they believe it?  After all, if you have a vague idea that you want to help people, you might support policies and politicians that are inconsistent with other beliefs that you hold just because it sounds good.  That would be one of the more benign outcomes.  At any rate, if we don't know what we really think on issues, then how are we supposed to make educated judgements.  We aren't, and the politicians know this, which is why they tend to appeal to our populist and communitarian sides...because they sound good when they do.

It is important to make these distinctions.  After all, most issues have a spectrum or range in which you can fall.  If you don't know where on the range you are, then you can be swayed in either direction much more easily.  Take abortion.  The two extremes of this belief are abortion on demand at anytime for anyone or no abortion ever for any reason.  Most people do not fall at either of the extremes and politicians know this.  However, politicians will use phraseology specifically crafted to sway you in one way or another.  For instance, a politician who wants abortion but wants to appeal to people on the no abortion end of the spectrum will use things like abortion should be rare but legal, whereas a politician who is closer to the no abortion end of the spectrum will use phrases like I value life, but a woman has to make her own decision thus implying choice.  Neither of these statements say anything in reality, because the guy who values life will vote against abortion more often than not and the guy who wants it to be rare will vote for it.  If you think otherwise, I submit you are naive.

Nonetheless, this is a specific example of why people should know what they stand for and why.  If you can state your reasons to yourself and justify them to yourself, then you are less likely to be swayed by the propaganda of politicians.  So, to assist in this, I will provide some context to commonly misunderstood political and economic concepts.  First of all, some definitions.

Democracy - A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them or in recent years, this has been horribly misdefined as a state whose head is not a monarch.
Tyranny - a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.
Anarchy - the absence of government or a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.
Oligarchy -  government by the few or a government where a small group exercises control.
Communism - a theory advocating the elimination of private property and a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole or

in Marxist theory, the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Austrian School - Forerunner of unrestrained free market (libertarian) economics, its central concept is that the coordination of human effort can be achieved only through the combined decisions and judgments of individuals and cannot be forced by an external agency such as a government. It emphasizes complete freedom of association and sovereignty of individual property rights.

Keynesianism - The main plank of this theory is the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy. This theory further asserts that free markets have no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment. Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability.

Democracy, Republic, Tyranny, Anarchy and Oligarchy are political realities that are independent of economic theories.  The Austrian School and Keynesian economics are economic theories that are independent of political realities.  This should be pretty straightforward.  Then come Communism and Socialism.  These are primarily economic theories but have political implications because of how they have been implemented historically.  In fact, as I see it, there are really only 4 types of political entities.  Government of the people (Democracy and Republic), government of the one (tyranny), government of the few (Oligarchy) and no government at all (anarchy).  Anarchy is not really able to survive for an extended period of time.  When a society or group fall into anarchy, they always emerge shortly thereafter with one of the other three forms, so I'm not sure we can even call it a political entity.  You ask about monarchies or theocracies, etc.?  Well, a monarchy is nothing more than a King with his advisors.  Therefore, it is an oligarchy at best and a tyranny at worst.  A theocracy is a simple oligarchy, only instead of secular leaders lording over the populace, you have religious leaders doing it.

The Austrian School of Economics and Keynesian Economics are the two most common forms of thought in economics today.  Generally, an economist is one or the other.  However, some economists seem to think they can take the positive parts of both and merge them together.  I disagree with this perspective because I think the two systems are not fundamentally compatible.  The Austrian School relies on the market and the interactions of individuals to drive the economy whereas the Keynesians rely on the government and public policy to do so.  The Austrian School widely support capitalism as the best method to pursue for an economy.  Capitalism is not without its faults and it is those faults that the Keynesians believe they can fix.  They believe that through government policy, regulation and intervention, that the up and down cycles inherent in capitalism can be mitigated, resulting in a stable economy.  For full disclosure, I tend to believe as the Austrians do.  However, I agree with the Keynesians in one respect.  I do think that government can effect the economy.  However, unlike the Keynesians, I don't envy a stable economy.  To me, a stable economy does not result in full employment, but rather in persistently high unemployment.  At least, that has been the result where Keynesianism is heavily practiced.  In any system where you have highs, there must also be lows.  This is how things just work.  You can control the lows, I don't deny that, but you do so only by stifling the highs as well.  Therefore, instead of a great economy with shorts downturns and depressions like we experience with capitalism, we end up with little to no economic growth over a long period of time with Keynesiansm.  Both support a free market in theory, but a market that is heavily regulated in order to produce desired results as advocated by Keynesians is not really a free one, is it?

That brings us to what communism and socialism really are.  Communism is a utopian society where there is no private property and everything is shared equally among the populace.  It is not inherently an oppressive ideological regime.  However, in a society where everything is shared and there are no property rights, what happens if an individual chooses not to participate in the cooperative?  That's the conundrum with communism.  It can't support the rights of the individual...at least not on a large scale.  Sure, this theory might work in small communities, but human nature would interfere with it on any large scale thus requiring an oppressive government to maintain it.  Socialism allows for the concept of property rights, but really stresses governmental control of the means of production.  So, while someone may own their own company, they must be submissive to the will of the government in how they run that company, how they set their prices, how they pay their workers, etc.  Socialism would be hard pressed to survive for very long in a truly free market believing society.  However, socialism was really meant to be a transitional step between capitalism and communism.  The communists understood that you couldn't just take people's property aware without problems, so they advocated a transition away from private property to communal ownership by using socialism as the method of transition where the state would gradually control more and more of the economy until the communist utopian ideal was realized.  There is a reason that the Soviet Union called themselves the Soviet Socialist Republics, after all.  They didn't see themselves as communists in the same way we did because the ideal was never achieved.  Therefore, one could argue that Communism, as an ideal, has never been fully realized anywhere in the world and that the groups we call communists are simply those who believe in the ideas of communism but are actually practicing socialism.

That brings us to the point of my post.  Many people complain about the various political parties, the various trains of thought, and particular politicians in this country.  They call them things that just don't really make sense.  Many are afraid of a Republican theocracy if certain elements of the Republican Party were to gain a majority.  This is highly unlikely.  At worst, we might end up with a few religious laws that can always be repealed in a future administration.  After all, there is a reason the founders require a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree in order to amend the constitution.  Some are afraid of a fascist government.  This is usually directed in the Republicans direction, but in recent years has also been directed at Democrats.  This is not something that is unlikely from either side of the aisle.  Anyone who believes in a large government and that it can be used to help the people is in danger of supporting a populist leader that could take us into a fascist state.  Many also fear a socialist state or a tyranny.  Both of these are also entirely plausible.  After all, Ben Franklin said the founders had given us a Republic, if we could keep it.  He understood, as did many of the founders, that tyranny was only one generation away from taking hold.  So, the only way to prevent tyranny in a Republic, is to protect the rights of the people from the government.  The only true role of government in a Republic is to protect our rights.  Anything else leads down a path that eventually ends in Oligarchy or tyranny.  At least, that has been the historical pattern, time and time again.  Only constitutional Republican forms of government have fostered the rights of the people in history.  And yes, you can have a constitutional republic that is a monarchy or an oligarchy, as long as primary power is not vested in the executive but is instead dispersed, which is what our system of checks and balances is supposed to ensure.  This is why a country like Great Britain can sometimes support the rights of its people but can also easily succomb to a tyrant, because the power is not dispersed enough.

At any rate.  Do you know what you are?  Do you know what you believe in?  Is it freedom or equality?  Is it Keynesianism or Austrianism?  Is it Republicanism or Socialism?  Is it Anarchism or Totalitarianism?  Once you know what political system you believe works and what economic system you agree with, only then can you truly know who to vote for.  After all, if you are a Keynesian, but you believe in individual property rights, then it is not in your best interests to vote for a politician who advocates communitarian principles because even though such principles can be consistent with Keynesian thinking, they are inconsistent with a believe in individual rights and property rights.  I consider myself to be a classical liberal.  This basically means I believe in maximum economic freedom and maximum personal freedom.  To put it another way, I am an Austrian School Republican (political theory not party).  There aren't many people with whom I agree with in our government because the average Republican is a Keynesian Oligarch with the business class exercising control whereas the average Democrat is Keynesian Oligarch with the political class exercising control.  Neither of these options appeal to me...do they appeal to you?

Is opposing homosexuality hate?

So, the title expresses the dilemma many people find themselves in today.  On both sides of the question.  Nobody wants to think they hate someone else and nobody wants to be hated.  I will concede right now that there are those who claim to be Christians who hate, all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, homosexuals included.  However, rarely do I find someone on the opposite side of the argument who is willing to concede that people who speak out against Christians, Muslims, Jews or any other religious group that opposes homosexuality are hateful.  Yet, time and again, I find examples of exactly that...Dan Savage anyone?  That isn't really the point of this post however.  My point is to decide if opposition to homosexuality makes a person homophobic or hateful of homosexuals.

First of all, this entire premise seems ludicrous to me.  Time and again, I see people complain because a Christian (interesting that nobody seems to complain about Muslims when they oppose homosexuality, but I digress) has stated a position, using the Bible, that considers homosexuality to be wrong or sinful or whatever you want to call it.  People have used the Bible to justify all sorts of hatred in the past, so I am not naive enough to think that this is never the case.  Obviously, people who hate homosexuals will find a way to justify their hatred.  However, the media and lately, several of my friends, don't seem to distinguish a difference between those who actually hate and are using the Bible as justification versus those who don't hate, but believe in what the Bible says.  It seems to me that many people these days think they are one in the same.  This is NOT the case.  In fact, I'm opposed to asteroids raining down on me, but I don't hate the asteroid.  It isn't about what you say or even how you say it.  It is about what's in your heart...your motives.

Generally, I follow the premise that it is better to keep my mouth shut and be thought wise than to open my mouth and prove myself a fool (a paraphrase from Proverbs).  I fail at this more often than I'd like and end up in pointless arguments with people I don't even know.  However, God helps me succeed at it a lot too, which is more in line with His will anyway.  When it comes to talking with other Christians though, I have to also keep this verse in mind: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).  This tells me that Christians should correct Christians when their behavior is unbiblical.  I generally avoid this task except when specifically led to say something.  Today is one of those days.  People generally oppose the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality because it comes from Leviticus and we've dropped so much from Leviticus already, what's one more thing.  Well, I'll explain exactly why this is NOT a conundrum as so many think.


First of all, the New Testament, on several occasions, changes the Levitical law.  Christ says he did not come to condemn, but to save.  He said he came to fulfill the law.  He came to free us from the law.  Some say Christ is referring only to the ten commandments while others say it is all of the Old Testament law.  That argument doesn't really matter, but for the sake of argument, I think it is referring to ALL the Old Testament law.  Therefore, when we look at the New Testament and we see Christ speaking of freeing us from the law, we can argue that Christians are not subject to the law at all.  However, a very early disagreement broke out in the early church over this very thing, some arguing exactly this and therefore doing whatever they pleased.  Paul, in his writings, clarified this position for the church.  He wrote about the weak brother, strong brother.  He stated that some things are sinful for some people but not all things are sinful for all people.  A strong brother will not be tempted in certain areas and therefore those areas don't offer sin opportunities, whereas a weak brother, who is easily tempted in certain areas should avoid and abstain from them because they will lead them into sin.  Likewise, a strong brother should avoid and abstain from those same areas lest they lead their weak brother into sin.  If the strong brother causes the weak brother to sin, then he is equally guilty of that sin.  This is a very hard concept for some, especially considering Paul had specifically stated that Christian were free from the law.  However, the law was given so that man would know what was right.  You don't hear anyone say they can go out and commit adultery or murder or theft because they are free to do as they please in Christ.  Therefore, the argument that we are free from homosexual sin doesn't hold up.


That brings us to the argument that the New Testament doesn't mention homosexuality at all or that Christ never mentioned it.  Sure, Christ never mentioned it, but he didn't speak about pedophilia either, so does that make it okay?  Of course not, so the argument that Christ didn't mention it and so it is okay is beyond the bounds of common sense.  However, does the New Testament  speak about it?  Well, we come back to Paul.  In Romans 1:26-27, he states: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."  There are other versus in the New Testament that have been used to condemn homosexuality, but this one specifically refers to the act as being unnatural, indecent and an error.  I've always found this to be perfectly clear.  Some in the gay community have argued that this verse is only referring to heterosexuals choosing to do these things, which always seems a bit disingenuous to me.  After all, that would certainly condemn bisexuals, would it not?  At any rate, clearly the New Testament does speak on the act and it does seem to be saying it is sinful.

So, if a person is opposed to homosexuality because they believe it is a sin, does that make them homophobic?  Of course not.  Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals.  There are plenty of homophobic people, but you can't label someone that way simply because of their opposition to homosexuality.  Making such a claim is the act of an ignorant person.  It would be like stating a person has a fear of Republicans just because they oppose Republicans.  It is ridiculous on its face.  At any rate, the next question is this.  Does a person that maintains opposition to homosexuality hate homosexuals?  Again, I think there are plenty of people who hate homosexuals and will use the Bible to justify their hatred, but you can't say that a person who is opposed to homosexuality hates homosexuals.  That's ridiculous.  Do you hate the adulterer, idolator, drunkard, murderer, or whatever?  Surely some do and that is very unfortunate when it happens, but that is not the way of Christ or of Christians in general.  Christ calls us to love others.  Would I welcome homosexuals into my church?  Absolutely!  People come to God in all places and states.  Only through the Holy Spirit does God lead people away from their sinful natures, and this is an ongoing process.  Therefore, I would welcome them into my church.  Would I tell them or teach them that homosexuality is right and honorable and acceptable before God?  Absolutely not, because I don't believe that is what God has taught us and I do believe that I would then be guilty of that sin because I would have led my weak brother into sin.  Many churches do not behave in this manner and I find that tragic because they just provide fuel to the fire when it comes to those who want to hate and condemn Christians for our position, but that is because the church is made up of people.  There is a great bumper sticker that states: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.  This is so true.  It is also something that Christians often forget.  They fall into the sin of pride or idolatry and consider themselves better than their fallen brother.  While tragic, it is very human.  This is what led the lead singer of DC Talk (a Christian rap band from the 80s-90s) to state that Christians were the greatest threat to Christianity and a relationship with God because they profess Christ with their lips, but deny him in their living.


So, all of this to correct an error of a Christian friend of mine.  He condemns some boxer for being opposed to homosexuality.  I don't know the boxer, nor do I know said boxers position on homosexuals.  However, my friend called him a hypocrite and a [insert swear word beginning with b here].  The boxer may well be a hypocrite when it comes to having tattoos but being opposed to homosexuals.  However, I've yet to meet someone who isn't a hypocrite about SOMETHING in their life, so that isn't really surprising.  I caution my friend though with this.  We don't know the boxers heart and can't know whether he got the tattoos (Lev. 19:28) before or after he became a Christian.  If he got them before, he is NOT a hypocrite, but rather someone who has been washed clean.  If he got them after, the reference may be correct, but still irrelevant.  After all, he may be a strong brother in this area.  You can tell who are the weak brothers, they are the ones covered from head to toe in tattoos.  Even if he is a strong brother though, he should still modestly cover the tats or simply not get them in the first place in order to prevent his weak brother from falling into sin.  Finally, my friend quoted "judge not lest ye be judged" and then proceeded to use the b word in reference to the boxer and stating that he needs to read the whole Bible rather than just rely on one verse.  Well, apparently, my friend also needs to read the entire text since he is apparently unaware that it says in Ephesians "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear" or in Colossians "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth".  It is ironic that my friend chose to judge a person he doesn't even know simply because of their public stance on an issue of personal salvation while spouting a biblical verse saying do not judge.  Perhaps the boxer has behaved in a discriminatory or hateful way.  I don't know.  But if he is condemned solely for his convictions, well, that is unacceptable.

Afghanistan disaster!

The war in Afghanistan has been going on since the end of 2001.  Initially, it was intended to be a small counterinsurgency war designed to root out Osama bin Laden.  Bush had a significantly difficult time with this and was never able to achieve the two stated goals.  Capturing or killing bin Laden and defeating the Taliban.

Obama took over following his inauguration in January of 2009.  He followed this up with a troop surge strategy reminiscent of how Bush managed to calm things down in Iraq.  I criticized that move at the time because I believed it was a wrong decision.  A surge was not the answer, rather, it was a path toward ending up like the Soviets during the 1980s.  There has been some reporting on the casualty figures, including some reporting on how Bush didn't know what he was doing, that we were losing in Afghanistan.  Maybe we were losing and giving credit where it is due, Obama has certainly succeeded at making the situation on the ground safer with his surge.  Or, at least that is what we are meant to believe.  I think what the surge accomplished was to be able to secure certain areas as well as force the Taliban into hiding, but has it achieved a victory?  This is an important distinction, because nothing short of complete victory will result in peace in that country, in my opinion.  Ironically, that also seems to be the opinion of this writer.

I suppose whether or not it is a disaster largely depends on how you define success.  If you define success based on casualties per capita, then perhaps you could argue this war has been a success.  However, I'm generally pretty straightforward in looking at this issue, so I pretty much just go by the numbers.  This chart shows the growth of troops in Afghanistan over time.  Note the "quiet surge" of Bush in '07 and '08.  In other words, the surge that nobody ever announced until it was already done.  However, the Obama "surge" started in March of 2009 and apparently didn't end until March of 2010.  That's a heck of a "surge".  This is more like committed troop deployment.  The whole point of a surge strategy is that it is supposed to be temporary.  Obama recognized this when he announced the surge, stating that we'd begin drawing down the troops by December of 2011.  Well, this hasn't exactly happened.  In fact, in his visit to Afghanistan, the President made it clear he hopes to have Afghanistan on track to where we can significantly draw down troops by the end of 2014.  That's three years LONGER than his initial strategy.  That isn't a surge.

In Iraq, the surge was started in 2007 and the country was stable by 2008 and we had all troops withdrawn by 2011.  That's not a 4 year surge, but rather a strategy for winning and getting out.  So far, the Iraq government remains viable, although I continue to withhold final judgement on whether or not we "won" anything there.  Here, the surge started in 2009 and to his credit has become more stable.  Stable enough that a sitting President thought it was safe enough for him to "visit" a warzone.  I disagree with him on this decision, but that's just my opinion.  I thought it was a rather foolhardy thing to do actually.  Nonetheless, if he is successful in getting our troops out by 2014  (this assumes he gets another term to do it), then this surge will have taken 5 years from beginning to end.  I still see no evidence that this 2014 deadline is anything more than a political hope.  After all, we still have over 90 thousand troops there.

Finally, let's just look at the numbers.  The media made a huge deal out of every single soldier's death when Bush was President.  I'm not opposed to this.  Since I am generally not in favor of war, highlighting and honoring as many of our war dead is noble and necessary.  However, in recent times, the media seems to have forgotten that anyone is dying over there at all.  Is that because of who is President or because this is an election year or both?  I don't know, but it is awfully convenient.  After all, the President has always stated that this is the war he supports.  Therefore, many people see this as the "good" war.  Ridiculous to me, but that's the way things are.  Now, here's an interesting statistic.  Would you believe me if I told you that Bush had fewer casualties than Obama in Afghanistan?  Probably not.  After all, Bush had 8 years and Obama has just over 3 years.  Also, Bush had a disaster on his hands according to the media which Obama's surge fixed.  Well...I have to admit that reality also surprised me.  It seems that 67 percent of the dead and over 82 percent of the wounded soldiers in the Afghanistan war have come in the 3 years since Obama took over.  That's astounding!  You can't define that as success.  Can you?  Sure, per capita figures are probably much better for Obama, but 2/3 of all the dead in the war in 3 of the 11 years?  And this isn't just deaths early on in the surge.  There were 41 deaths in April of 2012.  That's the most since October, but I bet you hadn't heard about that.  So fine, maybe we have a political victory like we seem to have won in Iraq?  Not really, the Taliban don't seemed deterred, as evidenced by their attacks following the President's visit yesterday.  At any rate, I leave it to the individual to decide if we are being "successful" in Afghanistan, but to me, it seems like we are just being political.  Rather than throwing everything we have at the Taliban, we seem content to secure most of the country and try to "negotiate" with an enemy that would just assume nuke us all (yes, I know that is opinion stated as fact).  This strategy didn't work in Europe, it has yet to be proven that it'll work in Iraq and I highly doubt it'll work in Afghanistan.

Here's our actual casualty figures to date.

Afghanistan casualties:

	Wounded	Dead		Percentage	Obama	Bush
Bush	2696	645		Wounded	82.4	17.6
Obama	12626	1312		Dead	67	33
Total	15322	1957

So much for Dan Savage!

Dan Savage has made a name for himself through a very effective campaign to shine the light on bullying.  Specifically, bullying directed towards homosexuals, but it certainly went well beyond that.  As a child who was bullied, I support the goal of this campaign, to end bullying.  However, since trying to get kids NOT to bully, especially young kids, is like trying to get the sun not to rise, I think these efforts should be focused on teens and adults.  That, in essence, is what his campaign has done.  By using social media, YouTube, etc., he has focused his efforts on those groups.  Again, I felt that was the best way to go.

However, his recent speech to a bunch of high school kids at a journalism conference showed his true feelings, not just on bullying (he's against it when directed against him but for it when he is doing it) but on the Bible and Christians.  I must say, I was shocked at the duplicitousness of Savage.  Even worse, was the reaction of a majority of the crowd, behaving like a bunch of kids on the playground cheering on the bully who's beating up a kid.  I don't care who you are or what you've been through, you don't solve the problem of bullying by being a bully.  In fact, the Christians in this video did the very Christian thing.  They turned the other cheek and walked away.  Here's the video of Savage's speech, at least a portion of it.  I've read the entire speech includes such things as being unable to keep his hands off his husband if he were there on stage with him.  The inappropriateness of that comment (for gay or straight couples) given in front of a teen audience notwithstanding, this video speaks for itself.

Clearly, Savage has an uninformed view of the Bible.  He also seems to be feeding off the fact that some of the kids chose to walk out on him.  However, he is completely oblivious to the fact that he is bullying those Christian teens just as much as he was bullied as a kid and it is shameful.  The cheers from the crowd are even more shameful.  I'd be happy to address Savage's uninformed view if comments here ask for it, but that isn't the point of this post.  It is likely that he was mistreated and bullied by Christians as a kid and that they used the Bible to bang him over the head.  While this may explain his obvious disdain for Christians in general, it doesn't excuse his comments.  It is shameful on the part of the individual Christians who he believes wronged him so severely and I am sorry for him.  However, you don't blame the Bible, Jesus, God, Christianity or any large group of people for the actions of individual members.  Especially members who are behaving in a way that is incompatible with the teachings of Christ.  The existence of people within Christian ranks who condone bullying of someone for any reason is tragic, but it is by no means proves anything about the group as a whole, nor does it allow him to condemn an entire group because of it.

This man was winning hearts and minds with his very effective campaign to combat a very real problem.  Many people will see this and make excuses for him...those are the people who would stand by while a kid gets beaten up on a playground.  I choose to be the person who breaks up the fight and say this is unacceptable.  His choice to be part of the problem removes him from the moral high ground and places him squarely in the camp of bully.  This heart and mind has been effectively driven away, not from the cause of ending bullying, but from this man playing a serious role in achieving that goal.

How should we have done welfare, etc.?

I have a friend who always asks the best questions.  I say this because his questions cause me to think about things in different ways.  The below is his most recent:

What is the appropriate attitude to have towards welfare?  I don't know.

The liberal view is that it is not the fault of the children that the parents are flakes.  Children, in the richest country in the world, should receive food and clothes and shelter and schools and vaccines regardless of how useless the parents are.

The conservative view is that we're bribing people to behave antisocially.  Any time you do something bad, you are immediately rewarded with a permanent cash raise.  The way to get more money is not to go to school or work overtime, but instead to run away from home, or quit your job, or have another baby you can't support.  If entire generations and entire neighborhoods never have one worker, this curiously does not lead to utopia.

It is obvious to me that the liberals are entirely right.  It is equally obvious to me that the conservatives are entirely right.  What to do?

This led me to think about welfare in an entirely different way.  I am generally opposed to welfare, mostly because I believe it to be unconstitutional and because I believe it promotes a legal form of slavery...slavery to the state.  Of course, liberals and conservatives have entirely different reasons for believing what they do and generally, both arguments have merit, as my friend has pointed out.  However, he also showed that both arguments have flaws, at least I felt that he did.  So, if liberals are right and wrong and conservatives are right and wrong and welfare is unconstitutional as I believe, how do I reconcile all this?

It turns out, that after a lot of thought, this isn't as hard as I believed it to be.  It took a while for me to think about this, but now that I've reached a conclusion, it seems obvious to me.  For your information, here is my initial response to my friend:

Of course, there is no "good" answer.  However, I submit that our founders set us up as a federal system, leaving most of the power in the states specifically so the individual states could be an incubator of ideas.  The fact that our federal government left that idea in the dust long ago is too bad and quite frankly, irrelevant to your point.  If we used the states in the proper role rather than just assuming the federal government would take care of us all, then we probably would have seen 50 or so different models for welfare to date and thus we could see which things work and which things don't, scrap those that don't and expand those that do.  Instead, we have a one size fits all monstrosity at the federal level that can't be changed because that means you hate children.

This is a bit simplistic, but he understood the point I was trying to make (we've known each other a long time). However, I'll be a bit more specific.  The fallacy of the last 60 years or more in the U.S. government is that we have defaulted to the idea that the federal government is the best way to solve our problems.  While a logical conclusion, especially for statists, this isn't the system set up by our founders.  They believed the various states had most of the power and the federal government was limited only to the powers defined for it in the Constitution.  This is quite limited compared to what our federal government does today and most people don't even realize that the majority of its actions are powers not defined for it in our Constitution.  Nonetheless, the individual states were supposed to be incubators of ideas.  They were supposed to come up with various ways of doing things.  This would result in some collosal failures but also some huge successes.  When one state failed and then observed the success of another state, then those ideas that are good and successful can be emulated while those that prove to be failures can be scrapped.  This is the system our founders designed.


Relying on the federal government to do these things skips this step.  It may achieve a system much more quickly since getting the states to agree on things takes time, effort, and patience.  However, it achieves something else as well.  When the federal government passes something like welfare or social security or our modern example of health care reform, it expands its own powers at the cost of the states.  In fact, these kinds of programs are designed specifically to strengthen the fed while weakening the states.  They are also designed in such a way as to be used as a political tool.  What I mean by this is that for a person who wants to reform Social Security, they are branded as hating the elderly or a person who wants to reform welfare must hate children, or women, or be racist.  This is how these programs are used in the political realm...to score political points.  It also means that they can't be changed or repealed, at least not easily.  Therefore, the incubator no longer exists.  While we could have had the 50 states come up  with various methods of implementing welfare and social security or some states do nothing at all which would have resulted in an interesting variety of options that could be emulated or rejected or modified, etc., instead, we have a one size fits all federal model that can't be changed.  Instead of having patience and following the methods proscribed us by our founders, we had to "fix it now" or "take of the people" or whatever political speak sentence you want to use to fill in that blank.  This has resulted in a nearly bankrupts social security system that we can't change even though there are much better models around the world that have performed better than ours and are more stable.  It has resulted in a welfare system where 1/3 of the recipients aren't getting a leg up but are instead permanently receiving "benefits".  It will also result in a monstrous health care system with a monstrous bill to go with it.  Our own obsession with power and lack of patience seems to be what will be our undoing.

James Madison, the Bill of Rights, and state nullification

I read a quote that was attributed to James Madison recently.  Because of what it said, I had to verify it.  Turns out, it comes from his speech to the House of Representatives when he brought the Bill of Rights to the House for consideration.  This speech is published in the Annals of Congress, First Congress, 1st Session, pages 448-460.  It is also quoted below.  I find it ironic that Madison had to struggle with political realities of procedure to make this speech and get the Bill of Rights considered.  However, while interesting, that isn't what caught my attention?  Specifically, the words that made me want to look at this more closely were this "the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty".  Just what did James Madison mean by that.  After all, he'd written the U.S. Constitution and so was the father of the federal government, so to speak.  He was also an opponent of federal power based on his inclusion of the 10th amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.  Additionally, he joined with Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions which followed similar arguments.  Madison wrote the Virginia one and Jefferson, the Kentucky on, which can be found here.  There was not general agreement at the time regarding the resolutions and Massachusetts even officially went on record as being opposed to them, although there was a faction in that state that argued for secession during and leading up to the War of 1812 because they disagreed with the federal government.  Perhaps some of them were rethinking their position on this issue after all?

Nonetheless, just what was Madison saying?  Read the text below and decide for yourself, but...in light of the Virginia Resolutions, the 10th amendment and the speech below, it seems clear to me that Madison fervently believed that the federal government could not be trusted to police itself, that the Supreme Court could not be relied upon as the sole arbiter of constitutionality and therefore, that the individual states had a responsibility to question the acts of Washington when they clearly went beyond the powers granted in the Constitution.  Many people consider this to be a radical or quaint view today, wholly unrealistic...but I say that this view has survived the centuries when others have died out specifically because Madison was right.  The federal government CAN'T be trusted to be the sole arbiter of constitutionality or its own power.  The states MUST play a role in this.  In fact, Madison is seemingly saying that the state legislatures play an important role in safeguarding our liberties from the power of the central government.  Enjoy the text below, we should be exposed to these speeches a LOT more than we are.

I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the House. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a Committee of the whole, I think we might have rose and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended upon what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the Legislatures of the several States, conformably to the fifth article of the constitution.
I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments, and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this House. But I cannot do this, and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe, that if Congress will devote but one day to this subject, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures. It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.
It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is honorable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acceptance which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community: I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.
But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. And in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a reconsideration of the whole structure of the Government — for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door were opened, we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the Government itself. But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents: such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the State Legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow-citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.
It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated, because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption.
The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:
First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
Secondly, That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit:
"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to —, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than —, nor more than —, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."
Thirdly, That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."
Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Sixthly, That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:
But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to — dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.
Seventhly, That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.
In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.
Eighthly, That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
The powers delegated by this constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial, nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.
Ninthly, That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.
The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the Government, and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper; nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of, perhaps, by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore, the arguments drawn from that source were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution.
But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the federal constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency.
It may be said, in some instances, they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind. This, to be sure, is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution.
In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.
But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.
In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
It may be thought that all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defence; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one means to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined.
It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government: and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government.
It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people.
In the next place, I wish to see that part of the constitution revised which declares that the number of Representatives shall not exceed the proportion of one for every thirty thousand persons, and allows one Representative to every State which rates below that proportion. If we attend to the discussion of this subject, which has taken place in the State conventions, and even in the opinion of the friends to the constitution, an alteration here is proper. It is the sense of the people of America, that the number of Representatives ought to be increased, but particularly that it should not be left in the discretion of the Government to diminish them, below that proportion which certainly is in the power of the Legislature as the constitution now stands; and they may, as the population of the country increases, increase the House of Representatives to a very unwieldy degree. I confess I always thought this part of the constitution defective, though not dangerous; and that it ought to be particularly attended to whenever Congress should go into the consideration of amendments.
There are several minor cases enumerated in my proposition, in which I wish also to see some alteration take place. That article which leaves it in the power of the Legislature to ascertain its own emolument, is one to which I allude. I do not believe this is a power which, in the ordinary course of Government, is likely to be abused. Perhaps of all the powers granted, it is least likely to abuse; but there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets; there is a seeming indecorum in such power, which leads me to propose a change. We have a guide to this alteration in several of the amendments which the different conventions have proposed. I have gone, therefore, so far as to fix it, that no law, varying the compensation shall operate until there is a change in the Legislature; in which case it cannot be for the particular benefit of those who are concerned in determining the value of the service.
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
I think it will be proper, with respect to the judiciary powers, to satisfy the public mind of those points which I have mentioned. Great inconvenience has been apprehended to suitors from the distance they would be dragged to obtain justice in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon an appeal on an action for a small debt. To remedy this, declare that no appeal shall be made unless the matter in controversy amounts to a particular sum; this, with the regulations respecting jury trials in criminal cases, and suits at common law, it is to be hoped, will quiet and reconcile the minds of the people to that part of the constitution.
I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superflous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.
These are the points on which I wish to see a revision of the constitution take place. How far they will accord with the sense of this body, I cannot take upon me absolutely to determine; but I believe every gentleman will readily admit that nothing is in contemplation, so far as I have mentioned, that can endanger the beauty of the Government in any one important feature, even in the eyes of its most sanguine admirers. I have proposed nothing that does not appear to me as proper in itself, or eligible as patronized by a respectable number of our fellow-citizens; and if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame, or abridging its usefulness, in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect.
Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this House the subject of amendments, and also stated such as I wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support, I shall content myself, for the present, with moving "that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by Congress to the Legislatures of the States, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States." By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the House. I should advocate greater despatch in the business of amendments, if I were not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the Government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow- citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the Government.

What does it mean to be Pro-Life

I am writing this in response to yet another pithy political statement I've seen going around lately.  It states this "Pro guns, Pro death penalty, Pro war, Anti healthcare...I'm Pro Life"

Okay, I have to admit that this is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.  First, being opposed to the Obamacare law or federal regulations of the health insurance industry does NOT make one anti-healthcare and to suggest otherwise is intentionally political and disingenuous.  Secondly, there are real numbers behind each of these statements that are required to put the lunacy of this pithy slogan in perspective.  For the record, I will use numbers for each of these from the mid 70s to the present except war where I will just use casualty figures from Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, for full disclosure, I'm not opposed to all abortions, just the use of abortion as birth control...also, I'm opposed to the death penalty...I'm against both recent wars, but not necessarily against all war...I believe in the right to bear arms, but generally don't want to be around them.  Now, let's actually look at the numbers.

It is estimated (no real number exists here) that 45,000 deaths occur per year from not having health insurance.  I won't try to refute or support this number.  It comes from the American Journal of Public Health, so I'll take it at face value.  Extrapolating that to the time period I'm trying to cover, mid-1970s to present, and that makes a total of about 1.62 million deaths...tragic to be sure.

In 2007, nearly 32,000 deaths were attributed to guns in the U.S. and tragically, 55 percent of those were from suicide.  It would take forever to get the exact numbers for every year, but this is probably a pretty good sample.  Extrapolating 2007 numbers over time, that equates to about 1.12 million deaths.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan killed 7,718 U.S. troops to date according to iCasualties.  Covering allied deaths as well, it brings the total number for both wars up to 28,221.  This, admittedly, does not track civilian casualties, but there are estimated numbers for this which brings the total deaths from these two wars to about 920,000.  This is a truly tragic number since about 890,000 of these are civilian deaths.  However, this is also one of the best reasons to avoid going to war in the first place...because people die.

This adds up to a tragic total of 3.66 million deaths due to these things.

Now, the argument here is that it is hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty.  Constitutionally speaking, the pro-lifers believe that an unborn fetus is a life and therefore its right to life is being denied through the act of abortion.  Also, those pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty (the above statement assumes they all are, which is an unfounded assumption), generally believe that rapists and murderers who are on death row or been put to death have forfeited their constitutional protections because they have violated another person's rights to life, pursuit of happiness, to be secure in your person, and others. Therefore, these hardened criminals aren't necessarily considered tragic by everyone, so I'm counting them separately.  Since the death penalty was reinstituted in the U.S., there have been 1,283 deaths, not even enough to tick my total number up to 3.67 and so it remains at about 3.66 million total deaths due to these things.

Finally, according to a Guttmacher Institute study, 22 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S. end in abortion.  So, the Pro-Life group, per se, is arguing that abortion denies a person their right to life, thus the name.  A criminal has forfeited their right to life because of their crime, a soldier chooses to risk their life for their country, so right to lifers wouldn't even include those groups in their worldview.  I will, however, for sake of argument.  The tragedy of 22 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion shouldn't be a cause for celebration as it is for the Pro-Choice group.  This means that there are approximately 1.2 million abortions performed each year.  Since 1973, there have been over 48 million abortions.  So, next time, try not to compare the deaths of 48 million babies to the deaths of 1283 murderers and rapists.  However, in perspective, 48 million over 36 years is significantly higher than 3.66 million.  In fact, the total number of abortions surpasses the total deaths in ALL the other stated categories by 13 times.  So, in order for all those other categories to achieve enough deaths to add up to the 48 million abortions, we'd have to have our current conditions exist for 468 years...of course, after 468 years under current conditions, there'd be nearly 561 million abortions performed.  I'm gonna have to go with the Pro-Lifers on this one.