Live and Let Live

Although my beliefs line up more towards the right side of the political spectrum, I consider myself more of an independent. I like my rights to my guns un-infringed, my taxes low, and my liberty secured. I also think that abortion is a woman’s choice, stem cell research has tremendous value, and that marijuana should be legalized and taxed. I don’t get caught up with associating myself with a single party because that leads to narrow-minded thinking. I tend to take a straight forward, common sense approach to issues that come up. One of these issues, and the big one hitting SCOTUS, is the one about gay marriage and whether the states have the right to annul gay marriages based on their constitution.

In America, heterosexual couples that are married count as married in every other state. Homosexual couples should be no different. There is no reason to disband a couple’s marriage because they want to relocate to a state with laws against gay marriage. Doing so would put gay couples in a second-class citizen status which is immoral not mention unconstitutional.

The Constitution protects the right of citizens to marry and the question being brought to SCOTUS is whether or not gays are included in that right.\

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It sounds pretty straight-forward to me.

As an aside, I think it’s a little ridiculous why so many people are opposed to gay marriage. The main reasons for which are: “It’s against MY religion” or “You’ll go to hell!” or “Eww that’s icky.” Absolutely ridiculous. These same people are the ones who talk about keeping big government out of people’s lives, yet they want a nationwide ban on marriage between two consenting adults. Pushing their religious beliefs on someone else’s life and expecting the government to back them up is asinine.

I say live and let live. There’s no logical reason to ban gay marriage and the states have no right to revoke people’s marriages. I predict a victory for the gay community in this case.

The (Instantized) Information Age

I agree with Carr that there’s something missing from typed words as opposed to printed ones. The new way of writing dictates that we get straight to the point whether it be in blogs or school work. No one seems to have an association to the written word anymore, it’s all about readily accessible information that grabs what’s left of our attention and holds it just long enough to drive a point home.

Don’t get me wrong, the advent of the internet has and will continue to revolutionize how people share and process information. How else could people keep in touch with a friend from high school that lives across the country? Call them? That’s so 1980. Write them a letter? What, are we in the early 1900’s? It’s much easier to write on their Facebook wall, usually in the form of “sup bro? LOL.” That may be easier, but the communication loses its meaning in the process of being instantized.

While I was deployed, we didn’t have regular access to the internet. When we did, I got emails and messages from people that were wondering how I was doing. That was nice and all but the things I remember most were the hand written letters. Pieces of paper that embodied the special few people who would take time out of their notification ridden day and write formulated sentences instead of abbreviating in order to meet a 140 character limit. The written (not keyed) word is special in that it symbolizes a deeper connection to the material whether it’s personal or political.

The facilitation of instantaneous information gathering by the internet can, however, be for the greater good. If a student needs a formula for math homework, it’s immediately available. What if they need a word defined? It’s at their fingertips. For example, one can type into Google “define periphrasis” and get a detailed definition at the top of the page in 0.20 seconds along with “about 29,700 results.” Political information can be gathered quickly from the internet as well. People’s opinions in editorials, factual evidence, political surveys, candidate’s speeches all within the realm of a few key strokes and a couple of mouse clicks. This leads to the easier sharing of ideas, but one has to wonder if this is really a good thing. Everyone has the ability to write whatever they want on the internet for billions of people to see. In the United States, the most extreme views of both prominent political parties are featured on websites catered to their respective affiliates, often presenting blatantly false headlines (click bait) in the name of ad revenue. What happens when people read these articles and take them as gospel? The answer to that question is something that America is plagued with today. The belief in false truths put forth by people with a self-serving agenda leading to an ignorant populace inhabited by people with idle hands who refuse to do real fact searching.

My views are reflected by this quote by Hank Moody in season 1 episode 5 of Californication:

The internet was supposed to set us free, democratize us, but all it's really given us is Howard Dean's aborted candidacy and 24 hour a day access to [expletive]. People... they don't write anymore, they blog. Instead of talking, they text, no punctuation, no grammar: LOL this and LMFAO that. You know, it just seems to me it's just a bunch of stupid people pseudo-communicating with a bunch of other stupid people at a proto-language that resembles more what cavemen used to speak than the King's English.

Don’t take me as a pessimist, though. Admittedly, I sound like one here but I really am all for the advancement of technology. It is, however, a responsibility of all who use it to remain diligent so as not to get taken for a ride we pay for with our ability to think.

What does it mean to be American?

Throughout our turbulent history, shifts in the American archetype have swung in every direction imaginable. From the unlikely victory over the British and King George III in the American Revolution to the long winded and ass-backwards War on Terror, there has been no shortage of controversy in our country’s 238 years of existence. What about the citizens has changed from then to now? How does the rest of the world actually see us? Why do we care?

It used to be that America was a feared super power. The thought of outright war with the United States was almost unanimously considered a death wish. While the US does boast the most effective military in the world (led by the blood-thirsty ground pounders known as the United States Infantry), the United States has been hamstringed in it’s current efforts by the ROE (rules of engagement) set forth by the Geneva Convention.  The Geneva Convention laid out the ROE to prevent unnecessary brutality by countries in conventional warfare. The War on Terror has not been a conventional war by any means. We fight enemies who either haven’t heard of or blatantly disregard the ROE set forth by the international treaties while our soldiers are bound by not only that, but NATO and US ROE. These restrictions have led to the deaths of American soldiers while our enemies carry on fighting without reserve. All this in the name of what? Political correctness?

Political correctness is a poison to American society. We teach passivism to our children in order to preserve the feelings of those with thin skin. The recent trend of “cyber-bullying” is the culmination of the lack of fortitude engrained in our future generations. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is now being said to be a symptom of bullying. The idea that someone suffers constantly (in the same way many veterans do after seeing the grossest forms of human nature) from being called a name or having their feelings hurt, especially in an online environment, is beyond asinine. There is a simple solution for cyber bullying. Turn off the device. There is a solution for standard bullying. Don’t raise your child to be a welcome mat to be stepped on.  I am not one to advocate the uncontrollable use of violence as a cure-all, however in some circumstances retaliation in the name of self-defense is the only solution. Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights succinctly states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Furthermore in United States v. Peterson 1973, Federal court in the United States offered that self-defense is legal in response to “an affirmative, unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences." This is largely disregarded in public school systems where a “zero tolerance” policy on violence is the norm. I can recall fights from my own days where the student perpetrating the attack was punished as well as the student defending himself. This is not only wrong, but it further lends to the idea that passivism is the correct course of action in response to an aggressor which as a whole is not a state America should be in. 

This leads me to the point of this periphrasis. When asked the question, “What does it mean to be American?” there are usually differing answers. A resounding one word answer I’ve heard multiple times is simply “freedom.” This answer is usually given by young college age citizens. A vast majority of that population are those that have not fought or otherwise contributed to their simplistic view of freedom. They are the same ones that lament the US’s treatment of insurgents in war-time while applauding the “courage” of our enemies. The same ones that call anyone participating in war murderers and child killers. The same ones who have only their own narrow view of what can be called right and wrong in the world. The same ones who deject the concept of war which is ironically the thing that gave them their freedom July 4, 1776. Our country was not founded on the principles of political correctness, nor were the militias that valiantly fought against tyranny bound by an oppressive ROE. The United States of America was founded on exactly the opposite. 

Side note: I do not think that America can do no wrong. I am not of the persuasion that this country is bullet-proof. Our country has its problems and in my opinion has been declining as a super power in the eyes of the world. However, our issues can be corrected by increased education of what actually goes on behind the flag and the dissolution of bipartisanism into a group that is for the advancement of the country and not political agendas.

Should the United States adopt an electronic direct democracy?

Should the United States adopt an electronic direct democracy?

To answer this question we must define the terms. A direct democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of a nation elect policy directly. Adding the term electronic infers that the vote will be cast, collected and counted via electronic means e.g. voting on personal smartphones, tablets or computers.

The pros of direct democracy are numerous. It would make the experience of voting much easier as one might not have to take time to travel to a polling area to have his voice heard. The amount of people who actually vote would rise provided the system was user friendly. Personnel stationed overseas in remote areas without regular access to mail service may be able to cast their vote quickly without compromising mission integrity. The policies enacted would be inarguably what the majority of the people want.

However, there are as many cons as there are positives. Voter verification has been an issue with the traditional methods of voting and I see it being worse with an electronic direct democracy. People would find a way to skew results by making more than one vote or by voting for other people. Security issues are abound with regards to anything electronic as there is no such thing as a hack-proof system. This form of government would leave US policy open to cyber-attacks from hostile nations seeking to crash the system or slant results. Also, the cost of implementing a system to be used by the entire population of the United States would be incalculable and would  likely be continually prone to mishaps or crashing. People inexperienced with or completely without electronics (such as the poor and elderly) would be unable to voice their opinions.

James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 warned against direct democracy in order to protect the minority from the majority. He states, “A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole… and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual” (“The Federalist #10”). This I believe to be the biggest downfall of an electronic direct democracy. If precisely 51% decides on an issue (including voter fraud and misrepresented elderly and poor), it would become law and the remaining half of the country would have to concede or become a criminal.

In short, if we were living in a perfect world, I think it could be feasible, however I do not think an electronic direct democracy is a viable option at this time and in the current global climate.

Source:
“The Federalist #10.” The Daily Advertiser, 1787. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.