Yet More Policy Wonkery

Going back to this posts' comments from Jennifer;

I read Neo-Conservative and they what I took from it was liberals that were pro-war. (a very condensed version)

Yes, that's right. The point I'm making about that is the definitions of what "Liberal" means and what "Conservative" means changes over time. Some Liberals had to re-brand themselves because they no longer felt comfortable about the "Liberal" label. They wanted to extend American hegemony.. and basically just want to launch wars as a first option.

Quite a few Libertarians have shifted to the Liberal ideology, due to issues such as same-sex marriage, and first amendment rights (like the pledge argument).

You make a good point regarding the wording of the Pledge (under God) amidst all the sarcasm!

I tend to get more sarcastic the more exasperated I am... such as when Conservatives try to lay claim to the "tradition" argument, and don't realize that the traditions they support were actually caused by the erosion of our secular state 60 years ago.

I still don't see it as a weapon of authoritarian control in the least. It's an oath to our country. I found this tidbit in wiki.....
___________________________________
[Bellamy commented on his thoughts as he created the pledge, and his reasons for choosing the careful wording:

"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands'. ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
"Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity'. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..." }
___________________________________

He may have been a "socialist" but the Pledge is anything but.

Here's an interesting essay that I just found regarding the pledge. It's a good read, and makes many of the points that I've tried to.. albeit in a less sarcastic way.

I was a bit surprised reading it that the author drew a logical contrast between the American revolution and the pledge, which is what I had written a few days ago.. I swear I hadn't read it first.. LOL

The United States were born in an act of secession, after all. An act of treason, in fact, which makes the notion of a pledge of allegiance more than a little ironic. If our revolutionary forefathers had had the kind of loyalty ethic embodied by the pledge, there wouldn’t be an America for anyone to pledge allegiance to.

It's really that simple. But, again, the ideology that this represents is what is important. Right now, the spirit of the Founders of this nation lay in the thinking of Liberals. Conservatives are lock-step authoritarian lackeys.

Just look at what Bush has done in the last 8 years.. one simple thing such as violating the law by conducting warrantless wiretaps of Americans.. Conservatives applaud that under their theme of submission to central authority (i.e., violate any law to "keep us safe"). Liberals are horrified by the concept of suspending the rule of law for any reason. Libertarians agree.

Ultimately, I am an American, proud of it, and very loyal to the ideals of this nation, which I believe are the complete opposite of the pledge. I think rituals are silly, and refuse to swear any oaths to the government of this nation.

Yeah, I do connect respect and loyalty with rituals, but I don't think that is a bad thing. Taking an oath to a country doesn't mean you have to agree with everything that country does. It doesn't mean you can't protest or disagree. It just shows you are loyal to it. Criticize away....that's the whole point in freedom. At the same time, if you do not respect the country enough to give your loyaly to it, why would you live there in the first place. How you connect genocide to the Pledge of Allegience is an enormous stretch.

Actually, it's not an enormous stretch. Overt nationalism is exactly what Orwell was talking about in 1984. It is what allows normally good people to acquiesce to horrible deeds done in the name of the nation.

It makes no difference to me if someone else doesn't "respect" the nation, or that they don't take oaths or perform the required rituals to demonstrate their loyalty to the nation in my eyes. They can believe whatever they want, it doesn't affect me in the least - and that, again, is a Libertarian ideal.

I think you're missing the human connection to all this. You've connected "loyalty" and "oaths" between you and your husband, and you and the nation. I find that disturbing, but not surprising - as it's the same sort of thinking that leads one down the religion path (complete with meaningless rituals).

Your husband is real, a human being.. and the nation is simply a concept.. a definition, if you will.

E.M. Forster famously wrote;

If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.

Think about that for a moment.. and it probably makes you really uncomfortable. It seems completely backward, doesn't it?

Thomas Flemming wrote of it;

In the 1930s, E.M. Forster, a simple novelist who was not used to reflecting too deeply, concluded that people mattered more than principles, even when those principles are embodied in a government apparatus. Ever since, he has been reproached by anti-communists for his disloyalty. In some cases, they have simply failed to read him correctly. But, even if they did, there may be few political intellectuals, whether of the Right or of the Left, who would be willing to defend Forster's almost feudal sense of personal loyalty.

Through the long years of the Cold War, we got into the habit of defining ourselves by what we opposed, and an imaginary Berlin Wall was built between the 'capitalist' Right and the 'disloyal' Left. In the course of the conflict, all of Burke's 'little platoons' and Forster's 'tiny societies' were conscripted to serve the national ideologies of Russia and the United States, and perished in the struggle for the world.

We still define ourselves by what we oppose.. the radical Muslims.. the renewing of the Russian rivalry.. the Chinese "Socialists" and once again, we are being conscripted by the idea of national "loyalty" into it's destructive ends.

Religion works exactly the same way.. it is the structure of something that isn't real.. and you pledge your "loyalty".. and you learn the things to oppose.. and meanwhile.. I sit here and realize that only thing that matters is what is truly real, and that is the human beings within my sphere of influence.

Jennifer once said she pitied me for not making that loyalty investment in the paradigms of the completely made up (i.e. religion). In terms that should be quite clear, I have no such remorse for finding concepts (as opposed to real things) completely irrelevant.

It is only the connections and human bonds that are real, and have any meaning. When those are central in our lives, everything.. and I mean everything.. else follows.

... and I just realized that I do have my own rituals.. but they always involve real things and real people.

The issue of the pledge has been an interesting thought process for me..

They may have the right to burn a flag, but I should also have the right to kick their ass.

Which is why the Constitution protects their free speech, and prosecutes you for assault and battery. You truly abhor the principles this nation was founded by, and then turn around and claim such loyalty to the nation - without really understanding the nation at all.

To me, that is like crying "fire" in a movie theatre. People have died for that flag and what it represents and to disrespect it means you are disrespecting them. Not a whole lot of people will take that kindly to that, nor should they!

This goes back to the "real" versus "concept" argument that I made.

Soldiers fight for their comrades.. for us.. not for a symbol like a flag. They fight for the real things that are important in this nation, and sometimes they fight when told to by a state that does it for the wrong reasons.

Ultimately, the soldiers fight for what you completely mis-understand, and that is what it truly means to be free.

Amidst your sarcasm, AGAIN, your point is taken with regards to the currency and oaths of office. I didn't realize that they were added so late. "Under God" should not be the tradition Conservative speak so forcefully of.

Again, religion is nothing but a man made construct, existing but unto it's own existence.. for power.. for money.

It is in the interest of religion to re-write American history - but the truth of the matter is that the current form of whack-a-loonery that is going on in this nation is anathema to the principles of a secular nation.

It's not enough to chastise religion for "speaking forcefully" about something that is completely wrong.. The radical agenda of Christianity (and religion in general) must be undone by undoing the trampling of the nation's traditions.

This is where organizations like the ACLU, and Americans United, come in.

Conservatives speak of tradition, but they really don't want to return to American traditions.. they want to create completely new ones and act as if that's the way it's always been.

No, not in the least, but when someone's culture supercedes being an American is where it presents a problem. Immigrants come to this country and cannot speak a word of English. And before you go into it's not our "official" language I realize that. But it is most commonly spoken here. I know you hear the saying....Why the hell should I press 1 for English, but it's true. We shouldn't have to adapt to them, it should be the other way around. I have no problem with immigrants, I realize the country is made up of them. They came to America because of what it represents but they didn't try and change it. The same can't be said today.

Completely untrue.

Every ethnic group has carved out their own niche.. and eventually learned the language and the culture, because it's in their interest to do so. So will it be with Mexican immigrants. Fact is.. many first generation immigrants in the past struggled with the language, and each subsequent generation did better and better having been born here.

Being American, by definition (unless you're a native American) implies that you bring a different culture into the mix. The definition of America is the sum of it's parts, and the growing hispanic population will continue to change that definition.

I will argue, however, that when immigration affects our laws, that is a completely different matter.

For example, the Muslims in England wanting to setup their own neighborhoods, and be governed not by English law, but rather sharia law.. that's completely unacceptable, just as much as some Mormon group wanting to have legal polygamy in their neighborhoods.

Yes, it is a complex issue and yes, the law matters, but I still think the law is wrong. As the law stands now, women are using it as birth control. If we don't set limitations or definitions they will continue to use it as such. Children can have abortions without permission or notification. Do they honestly seem reasonable to you? Even if Roe vs Wade isn't overturned there should at least be limitations on abortion.

You know how I tend to get pretty literal? You can imagine what I'll say about that... it's complete and utter nonsense.

You want to change the law because you think some women are using abortion as birth control? Really? I mean.. really really? (yes, exasperated sarcasm)

Which women are doing that? How do you write the law? Does it go like this?

No woman will be allowed to have an abortion if she had one in the previous year, as that indicates she's just using it as a contraceptive and is a tramp.

Who determines which women are using it as contraceptives? You? The government? Are there abortion cops?

You will restrict the rights of woman who seek an abortion who do NOT use it as a contraceptive because some other women (in your view) do?

Good god that's dumb.

If a state wants to enact a law that allows minors to seek an abortion without parental notification, then you can just say.. that's the democratic process in action. A state legislature passes it, the Governor signs it.. and you have no choice but to deal with it.

The only reason such a minor would even seek that is because they fear their parents, and if they didn't have such twisted parents, then it wouldn't be an issue. The onus is on the parents to not be assholes.. to talk about contraception with their sons and daughters.. and to make sure they know that their parents aren't to be feared about such issues.

I would also point out that the whack-a-loon insistence on "abstinence only" programs contribute to the problem, and cause more abortions. I hope they're happy.

I've heard this before but I don't think it holds any weight. Should drugs be legal so someone doesn't use an infected needle and get HIIV, or get some bad heroin?

Some cities provide clean needles. It's called being realistic.

And yes.. I think drugs should be decriminalised. It's the Libertarian thing to do.

I'm not into drugs, I like my fine European beers, and wines.. but what somebody else does makes no difference to me. They're going to do it anyway, and our prisons are jam packed with drug offenders.. costing us money to house and feed them. It's just simply stupid.

For a society that claims to value "personal responsibility", we sure like to write laws that assumes people will not be responsible. Heck, in many cases, alcohol is more dangerous, and the inconsistency in the law is just dumb.

I hope that comment was not directed at me because it's just plain low! I can't speak for others but I have always had compassion for those less fortunate and it has absolutely nothing to do with being a Conservative or being disabled myself. It's called being human! And yes, I did find Doug's lack of compassion insulting and inhumane.

No.. it was directed at Doug and his son who used Medi-Caid to pay for cancer treatment.

You seem to understand the issue.

No, it's called security and hell yes, I want it and expect it. Anybody could die at any moment, but that doesnt' mean that we should not do everything in our power to prevent and avoid it. I don't feel we should lessen our protection and security for the fear of offending someone. (I'm not talking about profiling either.) Notice I use the word "suspicious."

That's completely different. That's "probable cause". If there is something suspicious going on, of course it should always be checked out, regardless of any innate characteristic of the people involved.

I just don't think you shake somebody down becuase they are a young Muslim looking man.

I'm not paranoid in the least, I just have my eyes open. I don't close my eyes and pretend there is nothing out there to hurt us. There is, and to be aware of that is just using common sense. The claim by Doug, now that is paranoid.

Ya.. that's sensible..

Thing with Doug is.. his agenda is a religious one.. not a "security" one.. and so provoking conflict between differing religious groups furthers that agenda. He'll go to just about any rhetorical extreme in provocation.

Heck.. just last week he claimed that American Muslims should not be allowed to hold elected office in the United States.

.. he's just fucking insane is all.. but has to be my all time favorite freak.

I totally agree with that statement and that is why the struggle. It's human nature to want vengeance.

How do you figure that a society is reflected on how they treat their prisoners? They broke the law! Are they supposed to be fed Filet Mignon and given luxury suites? Of course not, they are supposed to be punished. Hell, if we gave prisoners superior treatment it would be better to kill someone and spend their life in jail rather than live in some of the conditions people find themselves in.

Be assertive and take a stand. You oppose capital punishment.

I was paraphrasing a quote... I'll paste the exact quote..

"A society should not be judged by how it treats its citizens, but by how it treats its criminals." Fyodor Dostoevsky

The idea is that a society that values humanity and compassion is reflected in how it treats it's least desirable citizens. In essence, if we treat those criminals well, then you must be treating your citizens extremely well.

That make sense? It's kind of hard to explain.

You statement was a bunch of nonsense and you know it. Nobody is suggesting prisoners receive "superior treatment". Nobody is suggesting that hard core killers ever set foot in public again.

The idea is that you treat people with humanity and dignity. The first step should be to toss out mandatory sentencing guidelines and give judges the authority to do the jobs they were hired to do. The "3 strikes" provisions should be thrown out. Drug sentences must be reviewed (or drug laws stricken from the books - but that's not likely to happen), and appropriate sentence lengths given commensurate with the severity of the crime.

The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any nation in the world. It costs us a huge amount of money, and take a devastating human toll on families.

With far less prisoners, reform of the institutions can take place. Placing a human being in a tiny cage, alone, for 23 hours a day is inhumane... period. Their environment should be clean, neat, non-violent, non-harassing, peaceful.. and some level of recreation is critical to keep people from going insane.

Fact is.. most prisoners are going to return to society, and you have to decide if you want them to come back really pissed off.. or hopeful of rebuilding their lives.

You either believe in the basic goodness of a human being.. or you don't.

And again.. we know there are some really bad guys out there, and while they must be treated humanely and with respect (regardless of what they've done), it doesn't mean they should ever leave the walls of a prison.

I understand healthcare is important and didn't mean to say it wasn't. I just don't think either side has the answer. To put it in the hands of the government scares the hell out of me....look what they did to Social Security. I don't agree with a lot of what the goverment does and to put an issue of this importance in their hands may be a big mistake. I do agree that something needs to be done though! If Obama becomes president we will soon see.

Again, more than 50% of the health care costs of the United States is paid for by the government.

It's already "in the hands of the government" to a large degree.. so you must be scared now.

Claiming neither side has a soltuion is simply lazy. There is a way to move it forward.. single payer is the way to go. I'll argue it with anybody.. because there is no real downside to it.

I think Obama will defer to Clinton, and he's already made statements that he'd be open to a single payer system. Clinton will move it forward in a Democratic Congress, with a Democratic President. It will be hugely popular.. it'll be effective.. and it'll make a big difference for large business as well as small.

It'll get health care treatment for people who desperately need it.. the 47 million that don't have health insurance right now.

The Republican plan? There is none.. unless they just change the definitions;

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

I've already debunked your Social Security issue in a previous post this week. Well.. I didn't do it.. the CBO did.

I got a kick out of the kool-aid man! The "many paths?" No, I believe the only path to Heaven is through Jesus.

Vile.. but it deserves it's own post. It's the one I mentioned that you wouldn't like.