I must preface this with an acknowledgment that I am no easy hand on the matter of economy. It seems a discipline which has only made itself more complex and impenetrable over time, attempting over and over to create mathematics to explain the inexplicability of human behavior, succeeding only in discovering mathematics with the same vagaries of the human psyche. Nonetheless, I must first explore briefly the main theory of economics that dominated the last century of history.
Communism began as a theory, but, in practice, entrusted the public with the responsibility to work for everyone else's welfare, while simultaneously denying them the freedoms that are every man's right and ensuring that they, themselves, did not have sufficient means to eke a living on their own. The foolishness of such a proposition is well obvious.
A near-synonym, among the uneducated, is 'socialism', which, as a derivant of communism, instead trusts control of the economic system to the government. Many accuse our own new president of being socialist, of enacting socialist ideas and setting this country on a socialist path. The word itself evokes horrifying memories of communism and the war that wasn't a war at all but merely the threat of one.
Many accuse our current president of socialist policies, in attempting to throw further nonexistent contents of the government budget at the economic recession. It bewilders me that one half of the country may claim this 'stimulus' is essential to give American businessmen (and women) a fair chance to succeed in the economic climate, and the other half of the country compares the policy itself to an economic system used to enslave and oppress its people. Obviously, one of them must be right; they cannot both be so. However, even the nation's experts seem divided on the matter.
Perhaps it will have no effect at all. It does not matter - each side of the argument may find evidence to support them, regardless of the outcome.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Division of Politics Along the Continuum of Liberal to Conservative
I find it difficult to understand the purely arbitrary distinction between modern liberals and conservatives, within the sphere of the politic. It seems to be based on such contradictory and niggling issues as marriage equality, the current war against terror (though admittedly I find the name of said war is not without a certain irony), the method by which citizens are taxed, certain reforms concerning the health of the environment, and many others.
I am amused at those who level the complaint that the word 'liberal' is used as a slur, a defamation of character and belief. To those, I challenge you to remember a time when it was not; in my own tenure as President, and before, I regularly had to defend my own stance against those who would accuse me of having values too Democratic, or supporting the right of direct election from the people.
To me, then, the battle between 'conservative' and 'liberal' is simply another way to categorize the factions and deep divisions with American politics. By the standards to which I am accustomed, you are all liberal - radically so. Your distinction is but a tiny one on a continuum you are hardly aware of.
Moreover, there are none who would countenance peace or surrender to terrorists; the battle about marriage equality has no place in the state, as one side is almost purely defined by a religious position; taxes could be lower overall were the government to reduce its attempted sphere of influence and control; and the health of the environment is an obvious matter of responsibility and citizenry, and should not be subject to such argument and dissonance as it is.
I hold little hope, however, that this country will cease its overuse of the 'conservative' and 'liberal' epithets and instead let cool intelligence prevail; it has shown no history of such so far.
I am amused at those who level the complaint that the word 'liberal' is used as a slur, a defamation of character and belief. To those, I challenge you to remember a time when it was not; in my own tenure as President, and before, I regularly had to defend my own stance against those who would accuse me of having values too Democratic, or supporting the right of direct election from the people.
To me, then, the battle between 'conservative' and 'liberal' is simply another way to categorize the factions and deep divisions with American politics. By the standards to which I am accustomed, you are all liberal - radically so. Your distinction is but a tiny one on a continuum you are hardly aware of.
Moreover, there are none who would countenance peace or surrender to terrorists; the battle about marriage equality has no place in the state, as one side is almost purely defined by a religious position; taxes could be lower overall were the government to reduce its attempted sphere of influence and control; and the health of the environment is an obvious matter of responsibility and citizenry, and should not be subject to such argument and dissonance as it is.
I hold little hope, however, that this country will cease its overuse of the 'conservative' and 'liberal' epithets and instead let cool intelligence prevail; it has shown no history of such so far.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Inauguration of the President of the United States
I admit I had not watched all of the Inauguration; there are other matters that occupy my time, as such an ostentatious display of popular politics fills me with, if not distaste, then at the very least some unease at its scope and breadth.
I can scarce imagine the sheer quantity of those attending - estimates have the number near two million. If such a vast swarm of citizens believes it necessary to freeze themselves to death in order to hear a new President and Chief Justice each fumble the oath of office, in their turn, then I have no will to stop them, but I would remind the electorate that the flagging state of the economy requires their own personal industry to pull it together again - a goal certainly stated clear enough in Mr. President Barack Obama's inaugural address. Better that they should have stayed home and lent a good few days of work to this country than lend their voice to a crowd that certainly needed none more and could have used many fewer.
As for the address itself, I had caught an echo or two of my rhetoric, from the Declaration of Independence, which I found flattering and unsettling in equal measures. Similarly, I do not believe Mr. Paine would have entirely appreciated the quote of his used in the manner it was (especially since it was credited to George Washington, who did not write a quotable word except by the hands of Alexander Hamilton or James Madison); we suffered through many a crisis proportional to the modern threat of terrorism, and Mr. Washington indeed forced upon the country a rather dark time of trade in order to support principles over wellbeing. Principles - and inspiration - in this case seem to have been rather handily traded for unashamedly pro-American rhetoric. Inspiring, after a fashion, but in essence not much different from the President we just set aside.
All in all, I did find myself moved - forty-one men have claimed the Office of the Presidency since I stepped down - but it was due in very small part to the ceremony itself and the man assuming leadership of the country.
I can scarce imagine the sheer quantity of those attending - estimates have the number near two million. If such a vast swarm of citizens believes it necessary to freeze themselves to death in order to hear a new President and Chief Justice each fumble the oath of office, in their turn, then I have no will to stop them, but I would remind the electorate that the flagging state of the economy requires their own personal industry to pull it together again - a goal certainly stated clear enough in Mr. President Barack Obama's inaugural address. Better that they should have stayed home and lent a good few days of work to this country than lend their voice to a crowd that certainly needed none more and could have used many fewer.
As for the address itself, I had caught an echo or two of my rhetoric, from the Declaration of Independence, which I found flattering and unsettling in equal measures. Similarly, I do not believe Mr. Paine would have entirely appreciated the quote of his used in the manner it was (especially since it was credited to George Washington, who did not write a quotable word except by the hands of Alexander Hamilton or James Madison); we suffered through many a crisis proportional to the modern threat of terrorism, and Mr. Washington indeed forced upon the country a rather dark time of trade in order to support principles over wellbeing. Principles - and inspiration - in this case seem to have been rather handily traded for unashamedly pro-American rhetoric. Inspiring, after a fashion, but in essence not much different from the President we just set aside.
All in all, I did find myself moved - forty-one men have claimed the Office of the Presidency since I stepped down - but it was due in very small part to the ceremony itself and the man assuming leadership of the country.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
On the Qualifications of a Mr. Barack Obama for President of the United States of America
As this blog is new, and therefore does not have many regular readers (though I prize unaccountably those whom it does), no doubt you are still unsure of the extent of my own political leanings, much less the party I would call my own or my approval for our newly inaugurated President. Indeed, I have never even mentioned which way I cast my own vote, which is the greatest indication of a man’s preferences. In order to rectify this state of affairs, I will dedicate this post to explicating my stance on the now-current president Barack Hussein Obama.
When I do lean partisan, I tend to favor the Republican Party, with great reluctance. I find the Democratic Party stance towards a larger, more controlling federal government not only imprudent but threatening; however, their favorability towards individual rights and their more coherent stance on separation of church and state leans me towards their side. As for the Republicans, their advocacy of the right of arms, and reduction of the power of federal government appeal to me. However, I am no typical Republican, nor would I be a typical Democrat, had I chosen that party.
As for the recent election: in my own views, Barack Obama is not half the ideal candidate he is made out to be.
The unprecedented popular support he enjoyed – indeed, the sweeping wave of new voters he rode comfortably to the White House – gives him what may be, and has been, termed a ‘mandate’ from the people. Such a mandate, and its heavy influences in the Senate and House of Representatives, the true location of the government of this country, cause unforgiveable danger to the institution of checks and balances within the Constitution.
The president has already taken an extraordinary amount of extra power from what was originally intended of the executive branch. Mr. President Obama continues that trend.
I cannot help but be similarly anxious by his method of entrance into office. His campaign was of swollen and crushing weight on the opinions of the electorate; once he pulled ahead, it was as though nothing short of an act of God could stop him, though Heaven knows Mr. McCain attempted valiantly. It became futile to speak out against him – indeed, foolish to even try. (Mr. McCain’s campaign was on the nose, just as Mr. Obama’s, but, unlike Mr. Obama’s, was run with unforgiveable clumsiness, not only insulting the people but failing to coherently insult his opponent.)
I do wonder how many voted in this election who ordinarily would not have, inspired by the crass quantity of Mr. Obama’s campaign commercials, his army of volunteers, and his popular charm. If it weren’t for the sheer overwhelming opposition to any government other than that of democracy among the citizens of this nation, I would indeed fear that Mr. Obama could declare himself king.
However, the main of my argument is now explained, I may turn to the question I have waited to answer. I did, indeed, cast a ballot on the 4th of November, 2008, though I remained undecided until the near eleventh hour before the election. While John McCain did not represent nearly the threat to the semi-autonomy of local government, Barack Obama did not seek to run on the strength of his record of military service alone; while Barack Obama used the weight of his fundraised fortune to eradicate resistance, John McCain attempted to court the weight of his own party by appointing a horrifically under-qualified beast of a vice presidential candidate.
In conflict, I finally chose Barack Obama, in hope that not only would he work towards eliminating the foolishly accrued national debt but that he would listen to his foes as well as his friends.
I do congratulate him, on becoming the first non-white President in this nation. May he lead us to prosperity and peace without sacrificing the ideals that our Constitution holds dear.
Signed: Thomas Jefferson
When I do lean partisan, I tend to favor the Republican Party, with great reluctance. I find the Democratic Party stance towards a larger, more controlling federal government not only imprudent but threatening; however, their favorability towards individual rights and their more coherent stance on separation of church and state leans me towards their side. As for the Republicans, their advocacy of the right of arms, and reduction of the power of federal government appeal to me. However, I am no typical Republican, nor would I be a typical Democrat, had I chosen that party.
As for the recent election: in my own views, Barack Obama is not half the ideal candidate he is made out to be.
The unprecedented popular support he enjoyed – indeed, the sweeping wave of new voters he rode comfortably to the White House – gives him what may be, and has been, termed a ‘mandate’ from the people. Such a mandate, and its heavy influences in the Senate and House of Representatives, the true location of the government of this country, cause unforgiveable danger to the institution of checks and balances within the Constitution.
The president has already taken an extraordinary amount of extra power from what was originally intended of the executive branch. Mr. President Obama continues that trend.
I cannot help but be similarly anxious by his method of entrance into office. His campaign was of swollen and crushing weight on the opinions of the electorate; once he pulled ahead, it was as though nothing short of an act of God could stop him, though Heaven knows Mr. McCain attempted valiantly. It became futile to speak out against him – indeed, foolish to even try. (Mr. McCain’s campaign was on the nose, just as Mr. Obama’s, but, unlike Mr. Obama’s, was run with unforgiveable clumsiness, not only insulting the people but failing to coherently insult his opponent.)
I do wonder how many voted in this election who ordinarily would not have, inspired by the crass quantity of Mr. Obama’s campaign commercials, his army of volunteers, and his popular charm. If it weren’t for the sheer overwhelming opposition to any government other than that of democracy among the citizens of this nation, I would indeed fear that Mr. Obama could declare himself king.
However, the main of my argument is now explained, I may turn to the question I have waited to answer. I did, indeed, cast a ballot on the 4th of November, 2008, though I remained undecided until the near eleventh hour before the election. While John McCain did not represent nearly the threat to the semi-autonomy of local government, Barack Obama did not seek to run on the strength of his record of military service alone; while Barack Obama used the weight of his fundraised fortune to eradicate resistance, John McCain attempted to court the weight of his own party by appointing a horrifically under-qualified beast of a vice presidential candidate.
In conflict, I finally chose Barack Obama, in hope that not only would he work towards eliminating the foolishly accrued national debt but that he would listen to his foes as well as his friends.
I do congratulate him, on becoming the first non-white President in this nation. May he lead us to prosperity and peace without sacrificing the ideals that our Constitution holds dear.
Signed: Thomas Jefferson
On the Choice of the Courts to Support and Condone Illegality against American Citizens
Are we children, too young to reassert our own reality, frightened at each crash of thunder, at each cry of 'terror'?
Is this the 1790s, that the government may turn against its own people, that merely opposing political views turn the might of the American military inwards?
Have the courts lost their minds, that they may, by due process of law, authorize a violation of privacy and of fair criminal investigation that they do injury to the Constitution, penned by our forebears, set as the law of the land?
Does the departing president truly believe that the safety provided by a sacrifice of freedom is enough to shelter that selfsame freedom from harm?
Perhaps Mr. W. Bush takes his example from John Adams. An honorable, if egocentric, man, whose presidency, combined with the monetary mismanagement of the father of our country George Washington, nearly ran this country into the ground before it had even begun. Threat of war with France - or Britain - looming high on the horizon, spies were everywhere, and conflict had not even begun. The Alien and Sedition Acts, signed in a moment of weakness, thrown into effect with bold cowardice, dawned a dark day on American history, and the PATRIOT Act did nothing different.
One may not negotiate with terrorists; one must hunt them down and eradicate them, destroying their cause and sapping their will to fight. The fight against threats from abroad should never be taken with the same methods against those with legal citizenship within our fair country.
Does citizenship of the United States mean nothing, in terms of freedoms, rights, justices that other nations do not have? Must we exercise force the same way to every suspect of terror, regardless of the rule of law?
This court has made the wrong decision. It is my most sincere hope that they do not insist upon it for long.
Signed: Thomas Jefferson
Is this the 1790s, that the government may turn against its own people, that merely opposing political views turn the might of the American military inwards?
Have the courts lost their minds, that they may, by due process of law, authorize a violation of privacy and of fair criminal investigation that they do injury to the Constitution, penned by our forebears, set as the law of the land?
Does the departing president truly believe that the safety provided by a sacrifice of freedom is enough to shelter that selfsame freedom from harm?
Perhaps Mr. W. Bush takes his example from John Adams. An honorable, if egocentric, man, whose presidency, combined with the monetary mismanagement of the father of our country George Washington, nearly ran this country into the ground before it had even begun. Threat of war with France - or Britain - looming high on the horizon, spies were everywhere, and conflict had not even begun. The Alien and Sedition Acts, signed in a moment of weakness, thrown into effect with bold cowardice, dawned a dark day on American history, and the PATRIOT Act did nothing different.
One may not negotiate with terrorists; one must hunt them down and eradicate them, destroying their cause and sapping their will to fight. The fight against threats from abroad should never be taken with the same methods against those with legal citizenship within our fair country.
Does citizenship of the United States mean nothing, in terms of freedoms, rights, justices that other nations do not have? Must we exercise force the same way to every suspect of terror, regardless of the rule of law?
This court has made the wrong decision. It is my most sincere hope that they do not insist upon it for long.
Signed: Thomas Jefferson
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
An Essay in the Defense of the Notion of Marriage
I am not overly proud of the devastation the loss of my wife has wreaked upon me. It seems, some days, that I have been wounded, simply and unstoppably, and that I may never heal from the grief. I have no doubt, none at all, that her mark upon my life is profound, and that I will value nothing higher than her affection towards me, not in the rest of my years.
I made a promise to her, on her deathbed. I vowed, to my love, my greatest friend, that I would never remarry. I made certain to her that I would never hold another in my heart as I have held her. I will keep that promise, as my marriage, the vows I took with her, are so important to me as to overshadow any of the rest of my life's work.
I understand, now, how love can take a man unawares - how he may lose his life, his mind, to another. I do not believe I had a choice in my emotions; however, had I made a choice, I would have not made one different.
Now I digress, momentarily, from the beginning of this essay. The passage of Proposition 8, in the state of California - among other state-wide referendums, in a variety of locations - drew quite increased publicity on the issue of marriage.
I will freely admit that I, myself, have hardly ever given thought to whether those in homosexual relationships desire marriage. Perhaps my own assured future, with a wife and the tantalizing possibility of children, blinded me to the cause of others. It is no matter - once awareness has been achieved, ignorance is no longer an excuse in a position on such an important issue.
As much as a year ago, I may have spoken in defense of religiously-defined marriage, though my own predilections have led me far from the church. It seems correct and logical that marriage is between a man and a woman. Likewise, it is easy to point towards history and claim backing for your position.
For the opposite side, it is similarly easy to shatter the idealistic, family-oriented fiction that anti-gay marriage activists have portrayed. Then, it is a trivial matter to point out divorce rates, to note that not all marriages produce children, and to show statistic after statistic to support the declining immutability of the nuclear family structure.
Every one of these points is in the wrong. Do we base an institution - a covenant - on a convenient fiction, and on the sole basis of reproduction? Contrariwise, do we change that same institution on the flimsy hypothesis that society has already changed it for us? No, these logical arguments leave much to be desired. Instead, we must reach towards a simpler, more universal truth, for the answer to this dilemma.
I have spoken of love, and how highly I regarded my Martha. I have spoken of my helplessness in the face of my emotions towards her. She has requested of me a promise that I never marry again; I do not know if, later in my years, I will regret that decision, or if I will regret breaking that decision. I am aware enough to know that I may love again, though likewise aware enough to know that no other will ever quite live up to my first.
One tenet I hold true: each human on this world knows when they touch an emotion that is so stirring, so deeply held, that it may not be dislodged. In America's last years as a British colony, that feeling was the need for freedom, the drive in all men to break the chains binding them to unfair and illegal authority and choose their fate themselves.
Today, that feeling is love.
Queer men and women may fall in love. They may feel as deeply as we do, as strongly, as all-powerfully. On behalf of myself, and on the others who were as blind as I, you have my deepest regrets, my sincerest apology for my ignorance. If you have the same love as I have, then you have the same right as I have to express that love.
Expression of love is not found in visitation rights at a hospital, or at inheritance laws - though both of these, in terms of equal rights, may not be dropped by the wayside. Expression of love, and equality in expression of love, is found in marriage itself.
I write this essay not to defend the ordinary definition of marriage, as one man and one woman, but to defend what has become, in our world hurtling through a modern age, a physical and legal representation of an emotion as timeless as a soul.
Intolerance may have held victory, this past November, but it will not always be so, and that day is coming soon. We will take that much more of a step - perhaps small, on the face of it - towards true equality, true liberty; indeed, towards the true essence of the founding of this country. The process is inexorable, and the best men and women of this country do not lament that fact but applaud it.
Signed: Thomas Jefferson
I made a promise to her, on her deathbed. I vowed, to my love, my greatest friend, that I would never remarry. I made certain to her that I would never hold another in my heart as I have held her. I will keep that promise, as my marriage, the vows I took with her, are so important to me as to overshadow any of the rest of my life's work.
I understand, now, how love can take a man unawares - how he may lose his life, his mind, to another. I do not believe I had a choice in my emotions; however, had I made a choice, I would have not made one different.
Now I digress, momentarily, from the beginning of this essay. The passage of Proposition 8, in the state of California - among other state-wide referendums, in a variety of locations - drew quite increased publicity on the issue of marriage.
I will freely admit that I, myself, have hardly ever given thought to whether those in homosexual relationships desire marriage. Perhaps my own assured future, with a wife and the tantalizing possibility of children, blinded me to the cause of others. It is no matter - once awareness has been achieved, ignorance is no longer an excuse in a position on such an important issue.
As much as a year ago, I may have spoken in defense of religiously-defined marriage, though my own predilections have led me far from the church. It seems correct and logical that marriage is between a man and a woman. Likewise, it is easy to point towards history and claim backing for your position.
For the opposite side, it is similarly easy to shatter the idealistic, family-oriented fiction that anti-gay marriage activists have portrayed. Then, it is a trivial matter to point out divorce rates, to note that not all marriages produce children, and to show statistic after statistic to support the declining immutability of the nuclear family structure.
Every one of these points is in the wrong. Do we base an institution - a covenant - on a convenient fiction, and on the sole basis of reproduction? Contrariwise, do we change that same institution on the flimsy hypothesis that society has already changed it for us? No, these logical arguments leave much to be desired. Instead, we must reach towards a simpler, more universal truth, for the answer to this dilemma.
I have spoken of love, and how highly I regarded my Martha. I have spoken of my helplessness in the face of my emotions towards her. She has requested of me a promise that I never marry again; I do not know if, later in my years, I will regret that decision, or if I will regret breaking that decision. I am aware enough to know that I may love again, though likewise aware enough to know that no other will ever quite live up to my first.
One tenet I hold true: each human on this world knows when they touch an emotion that is so stirring, so deeply held, that it may not be dislodged. In America's last years as a British colony, that feeling was the need for freedom, the drive in all men to break the chains binding them to unfair and illegal authority and choose their fate themselves.
Today, that feeling is love.
Queer men and women may fall in love. They may feel as deeply as we do, as strongly, as all-powerfully. On behalf of myself, and on the others who were as blind as I, you have my deepest regrets, my sincerest apology for my ignorance. If you have the same love as I have, then you have the same right as I have to express that love.
Expression of love is not found in visitation rights at a hospital, or at inheritance laws - though both of these, in terms of equal rights, may not be dropped by the wayside. Expression of love, and equality in expression of love, is found in marriage itself.
I write this essay not to defend the ordinary definition of marriage, as one man and one woman, but to defend what has become, in our world hurtling through a modern age, a physical and legal representation of an emotion as timeless as a soul.
Intolerance may have held victory, this past November, but it will not always be so, and that day is coming soon. We will take that much more of a step - perhaps small, on the face of it - towards true equality, true liberty; indeed, towards the true essence of the founding of this country. The process is inexorable, and the best men and women of this country do not lament that fact but applaud it.
Signed: Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
