Rallying Cry for Women

Rallying Cry for Women

If abortion is murder, then you'll agree
that these three should get the death penalty:
mothers, doctors, and nurses.
That doesn't seem pro-life to me!
That doesn't seem pro-life to me!

Letter to a McCain Supporter

My Step-dad, a McCain supporter, e-mailed me a youtube video about how the democrats caused the economic crisis and Obama's ties to Fannie Mae. I couldn't help myself. I wrote him a very long e-mail in response, and, for some reason, feel the need to post that letter here. I don't think I'll win him over, but my mom is one of those sought-after swing voters in Colorado. I figure if I can sway him just a bit, maybe I can win her over.

"Hey, I liked the video, but it doesn't tell a full story. First of all, if the democrats under Clinton caused the problem, in the 7 years that the republicans controlled the house, senate, and white house, the republicans did nothing to fix it. The democrats have only controlled congress for 22 months now, and not by a veto-proof margin. There's enough blame to share across party lines, and I think everyone can agree on that.

I have a lot to say about that video, so I hope you read this and get back to me with your thoughts. Also, I have a video for you, it's Barack's 2004 speech at the DNC. I voted him in the senate because he ran on these themes and this is why I support him as president. This is pure presidential material:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fMNIofUw2I

If you have time look up his speech on race in America. It is pure genius. No politician has ever explained race in this way, nor has a better plan for uniting all races toward a common cause.

I am glad to say that this election is not about the lesser of two evils, but the better of two goods, and that makes me very proud. I like McCain and Obama, but let me explain why I'm voting for Barack.


The most important reason for my support for Obama is this: He inspires people. Obama has the eloquence and poise to inspire an entire generation of people my age, people who typically never vote and don't care about politics. Obama believes in leading from the bottom up, not from the top down. He rallies the people for a cause and then drafts legislation, he doesn't draft legislation and find support for it. He believes in bringing the people back into the government and making our government by the people and for the people again. He can go to Mile High and inspire crowds of thousands of people. He can go to Germany and do the same thing. He is a President who will inspire our nation to something better and he will inspire the world as well. America will have friends again in Europe. Instead of being chastised by the rest of the world, we will once again be looked up to. That, in and of itself, is enough of a foreign policy and domestic policy. An inspirational leader helps consumer confidence. Look at FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" or JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". An inspirational leader encourages our allies to help us in global conflicts. When our country is in trouble, we need an inspirational leader to help us out. I believe that Obama is that leader. And in that way, Hope is a policy.

I also like Obama because he's straight-forward. He's not for universal health care, but he wants to lower insurance coverage rates (I'm not covered because I can't afford it). He is for the death penalty. He has a program that allows you to go to college for free if you do community service afterwards, as in Army, Peace Corps, etc. He's going to cut my taxes significantly. He wants to invest in green collar jobs. He's a smart guy. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and served as the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review (Without the help of Affirmative Action - which he is against). John McCain graduated 3rd from last in his class (of something like 850 students), at a Naval Academy that he was admitted into under legacy because his daddy was an admiral. John McCain is a hero, but I don't know how 5 years as a POW gives you experience as president. He never led troops or delegated authority.
Barack wants to safely and slowly end the war in Iraq so that we can put troops where they are needed - in Afghanistan, along the border of Pakistan - where Osama is. And he has a great VP, Joe Biden has always fought for the working people, and Joe has 36 years of foreign policy experience. Although, he might not be as experienced as Palin, who can see Russia from her house. In the biggest decision of his campaign, John McCain passed up Mitt Romney to make a blatantly sexist pick. Imagine if Romney was the VP nominee right now. The economy would have crumbled and there would be a candidate who made a business out of nothing on the ticket. Everyone would look at the McCain campaign to solve the crisis. But McCain lacked the foresight and judgment to pick Romney. He picked Sarah Palin because he thought Hillary supporters were stupid enough to disregard policy in favor of electing a woman.

Obama wants to surround himself with people who disagree with him. He wants to hear all opinions before he makes a decision. Just wait until Sunday. Colin Powell will be on Meet the Press and may make an Obama endorsement. I wouldn't be surprised to see Powell on an Obama cabinet.


Now, as for what I think about the video you sent me:

I think the guilt by association argument is weak. It would be very easy for someone to make a video about the Charles Keating Scandal that McCain was involved in. It was a similar situation where McCain was directly tied to violating ethics rules to bail out a savings and loans company that went under. We could also create videos about Sarah Palin being found to have abused her power as governor of Alaska by committing unlawful, unethical acts by pressuring Walt Monegan to fire her sister's ex-husband. The reason why Barack isn't doing that though is because he doesn't think people want to hear these types of attacks. He thinks they want to hear what the candidates will do to fix the problem. But here we go, let me explain what I think about the video. Please hear me out:

Clinton did start the initiative for more subprime mortgages to counteract the burst of the dot-com bubble that happened in the 90s. The thought was that these subprime mortgages would offset the market until a more permanent solution came about (this was supposed to be the growth of green collar jobs and a revitalization of the auto industry). Innovation is the driving force of our economy, and historically, the housing market is used to fill voids in innovation, because when the stock market becomes a risky investment, people invest in good long-term things, like real estate. The problem is when Clinton left office and Bush was "elected", science funding was cut drastically, as was funding for higher education, and we basically ignored the environment and the opportunity to encourage green collar jobs in favor of tax breaks to the large oil companies. The combination of these programs basically put a stop to all innovation, and we began relying solely and permanently on the subprime market that was supposed to be a temporary fix.

The other problem is that when Clinton set up the initiative to increase subprime loans, there were significant regulations in place to ensure that bad mortgages weren't made. It was when the republicans took power that they got rid of the regulation, saying that regulation hinders free market. It may be true that regulation hinders free market, but if you're going to get rid of the regulation, you need to get rid of the government incentives to make subprime loans as well. I'm just saying if the Dems started the problem, the Reps made it worse, and they definitely didn't fix it.

I think there's enough fault on both sides of the isle. Clinton can be blamed for thinking that subprime mortgages were even a good temporary answer, and Bush can be blamed for furthering the stagnation of the innovative driving force of our economy. Also, by the republican's theory of trickle-down economics, the Bush tax cuts should have created enough jobs and stimulated the economy enough to offset the dwindling subprime market. This did not happen. This did not happen because trickle-down ecomomics doesn't work. The rich don't re-invest their tax cuts to create jobs, they spend $400,000 on junkets at 5 star resorts in California (That's what AIG did...AFTER we bailed them out).

I should point out here that Obama does not want to increase taxes even on the rich, he simply wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and enact tax cuts for the 95% of Americans that make less than $250,000. The rich will pay the same tax rates that they paid before Bush took office.

Obama did receive more campaign money than John McCain, but he strictly does not accept money from lobbyists and most of his donations come from people who donate less than $200. Simply put, he doesn't have a few big donors, he has a lot of small donors. You'll also hear that Obama spends more money on advertisement than McCain, but that isn't exactly true. The Obama Campaign spends more money than the McCain Campaign on advertisement, but the Obama Campaign and the DNC spend LESS money than the McCain Campaign and the RNC on advertising for the presidential race. The reason? The RNC can accept money from big companies without the McCain campaign being tied directly to the companies. While both campaigns do not accept lobbyists money, the McCain campaign is more significantly run by lobbyist money because of the spending by the RNC. On top of that, Sarah Palin's husband works for BP. That's who their campaign will be accountable to when they take office. Not the small donors who paid to run Obama's campaign, but the oil industry that has a vested interest in continuing our dependence on oil - foreign oil. The US has 3% of the worlds oil (including areas not currently drilled) and 25% of the world's demand. There is no way to stop our dependence on foreign oil without stopping our dependence on oil altogether.

As for illegal immigration, the reason you don't hear about it is because both candidates are on the same side of the issue. They both have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.


As for John McCain foreseeing the economic crisis. Here's a fact check:

*McCain Says He Wants Tough Lender Standards—But Votes Against Them.* McCain has called for strict standards and greater transparency for lenders and for cracking down on predatory lenders. But he voted against a measure to discourage predatory lending practices and failed to vote on a bill that would overhaul the mortgage lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration. (McCain’s Remarks on Economic Woes, 3/25/08; /St. Petersburg Times/, 1/24/08; S. 256, Vote #22, 3/3/05; S. 2338, Vote #432, 12/14/07)


As for the connections between Barack Obama and Fannie Mae, anyone out there can publish lies about anyone else. Here's the real info from a non-partisan fact-checker, or you could trust Obama when he says he gets his economic advice from Warren Buffet, who just announced today that he's putting all of his money into American stocks, and is encouraging others to do the same to try to stimulate the market, suggesting that we need to invest in American stocks, and let the world follow us. Here's the fact check:

"The non-partisan fact-check website Snopes.com looked into these smears, and their conclusions about Barack and the Fannie Mae executives shouldn’t be surprising: “None of them has (or apparently ever had) ongoing roles with the campaign as chief economic advisors.”

*
Not an adviser: Frank Raines
*Barack estimates that he and Raines have talked for “maybe five minutes” in their lives, and Frank Raines himself even released a statement saying that he is “not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.”

*Not an adviser: Tim Howard*
This supposed connection appears to have been made up completely out of thin air. Snopes.com writes, “We haven’t yet found any tangible connection between Tim Howard and the Obama campaign, however, much less any information supporting the claim that Howard is a ‘chief economic adviser’ to Obama.”

*Not an adviser: Jim Johnson*
Jim Johnson has never held a paid position with Obama for America. He volunteered to help Barack select a vice presidential nominee but stepped down after just one week."


Thanks for hearing me out. Write back soon."

-PHtC

Palin

In light of the newly released investigative report on Palin (I've skimmed through it and read the conclusions), it's pretty safe to say Obama is likely to win in a landslide. He's now ahead in West Virginia. West Virginia! McCain is forced to back-track on his smear campaign, and for the next 25 days he will have to play defense over Palin's ethical violations.

What does this mean for the republicans? The republican party will likely have 1 more chance in 4 years to redeem their party. If Obama is seen as a popular president 4 years from now, the republican party as we know it is dead. The only way they can survive under those conditions is by undergoing a MAJOR overhaul, and the only popular leader in the republican party that is capable of doing that is Ron Paul.

I'm not one of those Ron Paul fanatic bloggers. I obviously support Obama, but I think Ron Paul appeals to the historical libertarian base of the republican party, a demographic that is currently completely ignored by the deomocrats and republicans. I know I would have a difficult decision to make between, say, Hillary Clinton and someone like Ron Paul.

The other possibility (if a libertarian republican isn't selected) is that the republican brand will so be maimed that they would die and be replaced by a third party, likely either libertarians or green party. While elections between democrats and green party candidates would be interesting, unless public perception changes dramatically over the next 8 years, about 33% of the nation will not be represented, so I see that as unlikely. I really think if the republicans don't take back the white house in 4 years, there will be a strong libertarian movement, and the republican party, as in the tradition of Regan and both Bushes, will be dead.

-PHtC

Liberal Liberal 2.0

In case someone out there doesn't understand the philosophy behind my first post on this blog. I just found this article that describes the liberal liberal philosophy almost perfectly, and they describe it much more eloquently:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297

-Please Heed the Call

Religion

I recently saw the movie Religulous, and I have to say I wasn't that impressed. I respect Bill Maher's best efforts to raise an important issue, but he lacked the eloquence and presentation style of Richard Dawkins. I thought that the questions he asked were good but not great. He argued the rationality of biblical text without arguing the underarching philosophy of religion. Furthermore, the movie was designed almost as a rallying cry for atheists to unite, but offered no ideas on how to get atheists to unite. It clearly, by its almost condescending nature, was not designed to sway the opinions of the religious. But this movie isn't really my point.

The problem in our country isn't so much religion but the dangerous combination of religion and public policy. This isn't a culture war between atheists and christians as Bill O'Reilly would have us believe. This is a philosophical argument between a group of people who believe that religion should not be used to promote a political cause and people who don't hold that belief. It is important to realize this because, while atheists and christians do not agree on some important issues, there are MANY christians who agree with atheists on this issue. I think that by attacking christians, atheists sometimes repel these secularist christians and divide their base of support on this issue.

It is time for atheists to say, "Look, we can agree on this: if god exists, he certainly doesn't care about what politicians think. Jesus stood up against the pharisees, remember? Regarding homosexuality, can we not relate the story of the prostitute that Jesus rescued? 'Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.', 'Love your enemies', 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself'. And that last one was the second greatest commandment of all. Wouldn't god want us to protect the Earth he created? Doesn't the Bible say that ensoulment takes place 40 days after conception, thus allowing, at least, for stem cell research? Can we agree that the death penalty is not a pro-life position? Isn't Jesus for helping the poor, as is Medicaid and Welfare?

My point isn't to say that Christians should be democrats. My point is that religion can support any political position. God is not republican. He is not democrat. If he exists, then he probably likes some policies of both parties and hates some policies of both parties. Unfortunately for Christians, god is not running for political office, and until he does, let's leave him out of political discussions. I'm not saying that your religious beliefs should not affect your political views. I am saying that you cannot ignore passages of the bible that endorse one political party while embracing passages that endorse another party. That is distorting the word of the lord.

Perhaps the best option for Christians is to weigh the arguments of both parties, and make the decision that would be best for the country, and pray that the candidate who wins will do as god wills.

We can have a philosophical argument over the existance of god later, but for now, can't we agree that if god exists, he sure as hell isn't a scumbag politician?

-Please Heed the Call

Current Economic Crisis

Remember that chart of smiley faces that you see in your high school guidance counselor's office? :-) is happy. :-( is sad. Well, if someone saw my face while I watch the news coverage of the economic crisis, they could accurately add WTF to that face chart. Seriously, WTF?

How can the Republicans who stand for a laissez-faire economy seriously be advocating a massive government bail-out of so many large corporations. Possibly $1,000,000,000,000? 12 zeroes??? Seriously? WTF?!?!

These people want to have their cake and eat it too, and it's time someone called them out. They want no regulation in the market when the market is going well, saying that big government shouldn't interfere with the practices of business. Now this argument is compelling. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, but if you want a hands-off government, that's what you have to have. You can't say government should not interfere in business unless the businesses are failing. It makes no sense.

The argument that has been made by republicans over the last 20 years is that the government should not regulate business because in a capitalist economy, businesses will regulate themselves. For example, a mortgage loan business that makes bad loans will fail and another will take its place. This argument fails completely when the government gets involved AT ALL. If the government bails out the mortgage loan business, you are preventing ethical, better regulated businesses from advancing in the market.

So by the republican's philosophy, they either have to admit they've been wrong for the last 20 years or that they are wrong now. They can't have it both ways, and they cannot complain about social welfare programs to tax-payers when those same tax-payers are paying for corporate welfare. It makes no sense. I really think Ron Paul is the only Republican that ever makes sense anymore, and the republicans think he's the crazy one.

I tend to prefer regulation. I just thought that the government was there to serve us, not the interests of business. More regulation in the first place would have prevented this disaster and saved my tax dollars.

Racism

Let me say, as a Mid-Western white boy, I cannot profess to be an expert on the topic of race, but while I'm outlining my perceptions of American politics, it would be a huge oversight to skip this topic. I am, however, very proud to live in the home state of what may be the first (half) African American president. Now, onto the topic of race:

Racism isn't a problem that can be tackled easily or quickly, but it is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. There needs to be widespread social and political reforms as well as changes on the part of individuals. Single-parent families are, by far, more common in African American and Hispanic families than in White families. For stats:

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/prevention/parent-statistics.html

It would be easy to ignore the socio-political aspects of things and simply tell minority fathers to quit being deadbeats. While personal accountability is a factor that needs to be addressed, and I do think there are benefits to changing how minority fathers define their masculinity so that it incorporates being a good father, I don't think that that is the whole story. I may be an optimist, but it seems to me that most men, if they had the choice, would want to be there for their children. So we have to ask, "Why?" Why are these fathers not sticking around?

Raising a child is a huge responsibility financially, emotionally, and physically. Perhaps these men do not feel that they have the income to support a child, and because it is easier and they can, they pretend the child was never born. In this case, we need to revamp our educational system to provide these fathers with an opportunity to make enough money to support their children. Maybe it is the case that it is MORE economical for the father to NOT be around. If a father does not have a good-paying job, then maybe the mother can get more money through social programs than if he was around. This means we need to revamp our social programs to provide adequate financial help to single and dual-parent households. Maybe the minority fathers are not emotionally prepared for fatherhood. Then we need to revamp our sexual education programs so that people do not have children until they are mature enough to have them. We could also try to change the way minority men are socialized through childhood so that they are emotionally prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions. Maybe the fathers are not physically prepared for all of the extra work that is involved in child raising. In this case, we need to provide these families with adequate day-care and after school programs. We need to educate these fathers at a young age the value of hard work. We need to help these parents get through their day to day lives.

Only through a massive overhaul of social, political, and individual doctrines can we bring an end to the racial divide in America. The things I stated above only address one problem, and, as I said, I cannot proclaim to be an expert on the topic of race relations. I won't go into the topic of discrimination, AIDS, or so many other things because I really can't think of anything to say on those topics. Discrimination is bad. We need to legislate and enforce that legislation.

I do want to address affirmative action. While I do see the benefit of affirmative action from a race relations standpoint (I also see the drawbacks, like assuming minorities need affirmative action to be considered equal to Whites), I think the program would be far more effective if it was a class-based initiative rather than a race-based initiative. Let's consider a case where there is a middle-class African American competing for financial aid with a working class white. Who needs the financial aid more? The poorer of the two. Furthermore, I believe that a race-based affirmative action breeds racial tension between Whites and minorities. Whites feel cheated by affirmative action while minorities feel cheated when affirmative action is taken away. By making affirmative action a class-based initiative, we help those who need help, regardless of race (Which still disproportionately helps minorities). It gives us the opportunity to maintain a system that helps minorities end the cycle of poverty while preventing us from fueling racial tensions.

That's how I see the topic of race. I again want to take this moment to say: I am in no way an expert on race issues, and I am open to discussion and grievances on this issue. With good evidence and a compelling argument, I could change my mind.

-Please Heed the Call

Economy

I tend to think of myself as a democratic social-capitalist.

Let's face it, a nation that is 100% socialist doesn't work. The people have no reason to take tough jobs or undesirable jobs. A nation that is 100% capitalist does not work. Businesses control the government, monopolies act unethically, and the needs of the people are too easily forgotten in the name of profit. Generally, an economy works best when you find the right balance between the two.

Where is that balance? Well, it depends on where you're at economically. If the top 1% of a nation controls 90% of the wealth, it's time to enact social reforms. If businesses are failing because they cannot afford to pay their laborers their wages, it's time to enact capitalist reforms. A democracy allows the people control over the economy in a way that balances the needs of the poor with the needs of the corporations.

I also believe that we need to cut the crap when we talk about the politics of economics. "Gas tax holidays" and offshore drilling are not any more of a cure for economic hardship than a $600 check from the government to "offset the declining value of your home". Let's get real. There's economic trouble a-brewin'. The government is in debt. People are in debt, and when the economy declines, that debt gets called in. People - myself included - will have to live within their means, tighten their belts, and try to pay off that debt. I'm actually already looking for a second job.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but I also believe that the government needs to raise our taxes. It is time for social reform, so raise the taxes for the wealthy more, but raise the taxes for everyone. The government needs to end the deficit spending and get out of debt. If the government had money, it would have the ability to help the people in future economic crises. Furthermore, our country cannot remain in debt forever. All loans have an interest rate. The quicker we pay off our outstanding debts, the less we will end up paying. America and Americans are going to have to learn to make more than the minimum payment if we want our economy to survive.

-Please Heed the Call

PS To all you congressmen out there, please enact legislation that limits all loans to 15% APR rates. Some of these credit card interest rates are unbelievable.

PS To all you lenders out there...don't allow a person to borrow more than they can afford.

PS To all you people out there...don't borrow more than you can afford. And don't get mad at me (I'm a real estate appraiser) if a lender tells you that you can't afford the home you want to buy because my opinion of value did not mesh well with your credit history. Think of it as me saving you from the agony of repossession. You're welcome.

Democrats and Republicans

First of all, let me explain why I'm discussing issues one-by-one. I intend to discuss current events, but I want to give this blog some background into how I view the world before I start discussing current events. I want to have a platform to work off of. Now onto Dems and Reps...

In recent years, Democrats have been labeled "Tax and spend liberals", and the label is, more or less, true. Democrats tend to tax the people and spend the money on broad-based social initiatives. They tax the rich and give to the poor. But when the label is applied by Republicans, it just doesn't make sense. Neo-conservatives have a strict policy of "Borrow and Spend". Neo-cons actually have a tendency to spend more money than the Dems while lowering our taxes. They borrow money from China, increasing our national debt. Our country is almost bankrupt because of the republicans. When presented with a choice between "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend", I will choose the former every time. Don't make my children pay for my policies!

Here's some proof:

http://www.calaborlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/deficits-by-president.jpg

Because that chart is politically motivated, I took the liberty of going to the treasury website, where they had a convenient Excel spreadsheet of government spending data. I created my own graph of national debt and deficit and public debt. The charts looked identical. What's more interesting is that the pattern followed for public debt. When republicans were in charge, the public was in more debt. But wait, why would the public need to borrow more money if they're paying less taxes?

I really don't know. I'm not an economist, but my hunch is that it's because the tax cuts are not going to the people who need them. The wealthy get tax cuts because the Reps think that will create jobs and increase pay to laborers. It doesn't. Wealthy business owners don't care about their employees. They care about their shareholders and strive to maximize profit.

-Please Heed the Call

Leaglization of Drugs and the Penal System

It was a war that started on the basis of racism. It was a war the was and is unconstitutional. It is the war on drugs. I won't go into why we should legalize drugs, because you can read it here:

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/legal_issues_of_drug_use/12reasns.html

I just want to point out the financial benefit of legalization as well as the fact that it would free up our legal resources.

I question the sensibility of the US for imprisoning people on non-violent offenses. Our prison system was designed to be a system of punishment, not rehabilitation. Drug offenders need rehabilitation, not punishment. That is why they end up going back to prison (about 75% of them anyway). Simply rehabilitating them brings the odds of their return to the system down to 27%, it makes them have happier, better lives, and it saves us, as tax-payers a whole lot of money.

But then, I think that rehabilitation should be free, as all medical expenses. I have a hunch, that will take the need for police intervention at all down to near 0.

On the penal system:
http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2006/02/prison_economic.html

-Please Heed the Call

Gay, Lesbian, and Female Rights

Allow me to begin this post by talking about women, the inferior sex, at least in the opinion of our democratic republic. In 1923, the equal rights amendment was introduced to congress. In order to amend the constitution in this manner, both houses in congress have to vote in favor of the bill by a 2/3 majority. The amendment then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. There is another process to amending the constitution, but it has never been used, so we won't go there. The ERA was proposed to every congress for 49 years until it finally received a 2/3 vote from both houses of congress.

When it came to ratification by the states, only 35 of the necessary 38 states ratified the ERA. I am sad to say that my home state, Illinois, was not one of the 35 (The only other northern state not to ratify was Missouri). What were the words that caused so much controversy? Let's see if you think this is a radical amendment:

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That's it! Surely this amendment would have no problem passing today, right? That was just the sexism of the times. Wrong! This amendment has been proposed to every congress since it failed ratification in 1982. It was last proposed in the house by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and in the senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

This bill does not even affect controversial issues like abortion. States with ERA in their state constitutions and anti-abortion laws find the two not to be in conflict. ERA does not affect marriage or allow same-sex marriage. ERA does not limit states rights, as it really only explicitly states what the 14th amendment is supposed to imply (But doesn't)

Why can't we get ERA passed????

Now onto another issue...Gay marriage.

I believe that marriage is an issue that is and should be left to the states; however, I also believe that a bill, like the ERA should be proposed with respect to LGBT rights (But let's focus on women's rights for now - we have to take baby steps). I believe that civically, LGBT people should be allowed to marry, but I also respect people's right to freely practice religion, even if their religion excludes LGBT people from religious marriage ceremonies. And that's what I think about that.

-Please Heed the Call

The Liberal Liberal (and what that means)

Historically, the term "Liberal" was used to convey a sense of the modern term "Libertarian", meaning prone to strict adherence to the constitution. In the modern sense, it has come to mean "Progressive", meaning advocate of social reform and environmental sustainability. I like to think of myself as a blending of the two, or a liberal liberal.

Some of you may be thinking, how can one support liberal policies while adhering to the concept of a limited government? I think that our founding fathers were very intelligent, in most regards. Don't get me wrong, I have some issues with them (I think the Judicial Branch is far too weak - but that is for another blog). The founding fathers drafted a constitution that is malleable enough to support sociopolitical change while intransigent enough to prevent corruption and government upheaval. The problem is that our government has ignored the constitution for so long that both good sociopolitical change and corruption have run rampant. I think this is where I take issue with the libertarians. Most libertarians want to go back to the constitution, but we've ignored it for so long that going back would erase years of the good changes that have taken place, albeit unconstitutionally.

Let's take for example, FDR's New Deal. I know some will argue, but I think that the New Deal did have, to some extent, an affect on ending the great depression. However, the New Deal was horribly unconstitutional. Most people today don't mind having good roads to drive on, social security benefits, or any of that other stuff. I also think that had the new deal been proposed as an amendment to the constitution, it probably would have passed. But alas, there is no change to the constitution.

My point: Libertarians want to repeal New Deal initiatives, I want to redraft the constitution to include all of the good political changes. Why not have every government policy of questionable constitutionality drafted within the last 50 years looked over and ratified by the public? The policies the public supports are explicitly written into the constitution; the policies unsupported are left out. We then propose STRICT adherence to the constitution.

I support social security. I support gun ownership, but I also support limitations (Private citizens do not need nukes) . I support female rights (Which, BTW, still are not expressly written in the constitution...equal rights amendment did not get ratified). I support gay and lesbian rights. I support a woman's right to choose, but I also hope she chooses adoption. I love my planet, and want to stay here for a while. I support alternative energy initiatives. I do not support war when it is not the only viable option. I believe that we, as citizens, have a moral obligation to help those in need of health care and cannot afford it. I don't support racism. I support open borders, so long as immigrants are documented. I want to see tariffs implemented again. I believe that education should be free and that no one should have to risk his/her life in the armed forces to obtain an education. I think that all drugs should be legal, but not necessarily over-the-counter. I believe that all workers have a right to a living wage.

I think that all of this can happen while strictly adhering to the constitution.

-Please Heed the Call