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