Sorta libertarian, sorta conservative, never poltically correct either way, dedicated to sarcasm and a refusal to grow up. That would be me.
![[Powered by Blogger]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s_bStlVPzC1t4sFxDCz_oq9Dz0x8WodjHUPU9fYfX_Xr5N6MEcSyM_uJxIiEZ6iNtPg-g377JQEw878-Xybon9vBhoY0s37I7BzZfJJ0IS=s0-d){kind=small}
Thursday, January 19, 2006
What Cleveland REALLY Needs
Not that long ago, there was a story in the PD about how much longer it takes Cleveland residents who work in the suburbs to get to work if they take RTA instead of driving. There was only the obliquest reference to “industrial sprawl”, and none at all to its causes.
Meanwhile, empty industrial properties abound. I live in Maple Heights, which lost 1,200+ industrial jobs in the 1990s from only two companies (Lucas Aerospace and Aluminum Smelting). The Lucas site is still empty, and “the Smelts” (where I used to work) is largely unutilized as well. Where I work, I can look out the window and see the old Midland Steel property, now empty and unused. I used to work for Kirkwood Industries, its campus is largely unutilized as well.
Companies going out of business and being replaced by new ones is nothing new. What’s new is the considerations new places must take into account. Despite the existing infrastructure (all three places I just mentioned have their own railroad access and are not far from freeways) already in place at so-called “brownfields”, it’s a lot less risky to build a new plant out in Portage or Medina County, or even further out.
The reason for this is something called CERCLA. It’s a federal law saying that if you have a financial interest in a property, you can be held responsible for its complete cleanup if any contamination is ever found there. It can be fifty year old stuff that was disposed of according to the laws of the time by some long defunct entity, and it could be something that could easily be contained rather than cleaned. It doesn’t matter. Even more dangerous is the fact that your lenders could be held liable.
CERCLA is the child of Love Canal, one of the most misunderstood events in recent US history. The common perception: corporate greed led to irresponsible disposal which led to the poisoning of a neighborhood. Actually, it was the Niagara Falls School Board that forced Hooker Chemical to sell them their old dump site, and it was same school board that, after having built a new school, sold the “surplus” land to developers. Government looks out for itself though, and CERCLA came to be.
Potential CERCLA liability, not crime, unions, or “racism”, is what keeps expanding businesses from locating in “brownfields”. While such locations can be cleared for development, the process is expensive and time consuming. Meanwhile companies continue to develop in the suburbs or exurbs, where carless inner city residents cannot reach them.
CERCLA needs to be radically revised. Basically, if a county has a certain level of unemployment (say 150% of the national average), CERCLA liability should be waived for any company which locates on an unused industrial property, as well as for its lenders. In order to ensure environmental responsibility, perhaps ISO 14000 registration within two years could be required.
This would most likely have to come from the GOP. As an example of how the national Democratic Party thinks of CERCLA, consider this. During the early days of the Clinton Administration, there was talk of prosecuting “polluting” industries located in disproportionately minority areas for civil rights violations based on “environmental racism”. This move was only squelched when big city mayors, mostly Democrats themselves, gave birth to porcupines (breech presentation) at the thought of losing even more jobs in their cities.
Not that long ago, there was a story in the PD about how much longer it takes Cleveland residents who work in the suburbs to get to work if they take RTA instead of driving. There was only the obliquest reference to “industrial sprawl”, and none at all to its causes.
Meanwhile, empty industrial properties abound. I live in Maple Heights, which lost 1,200+ industrial jobs in the 1990s from only two companies (Lucas Aerospace and Aluminum Smelting). The Lucas site is still empty, and “the Smelts” (where I used to work) is largely unutilized as well. Where I work, I can look out the window and see the old Midland Steel property, now empty and unused. I used to work for Kirkwood Industries, its campus is largely unutilized as well.
Companies going out of business and being replaced by new ones is nothing new. What’s new is the considerations new places must take into account. Despite the existing infrastructure (all three places I just mentioned have their own railroad access and are not far from freeways) already in place at so-called “brownfields”, it’s a lot less risky to build a new plant out in Portage or Medina County, or even further out.
The reason for this is something called CERCLA. It’s a federal law saying that if you have a financial interest in a property, you can be held responsible for its complete cleanup if any contamination is ever found there. It can be fifty year old stuff that was disposed of according to the laws of the time by some long defunct entity, and it could be something that could easily be contained rather than cleaned. It doesn’t matter. Even more dangerous is the fact that your lenders could be held liable.
CERCLA is the child of Love Canal, one of the most misunderstood events in recent US history. The common perception: corporate greed led to irresponsible disposal which led to the poisoning of a neighborhood. Actually, it was the Niagara Falls School Board that forced Hooker Chemical to sell them their old dump site, and it was same school board that, after having built a new school, sold the “surplus” land to developers. Government looks out for itself though, and CERCLA came to be.
Potential CERCLA liability, not crime, unions, or “racism”, is what keeps expanding businesses from locating in “brownfields”. While such locations can be cleared for development, the process is expensive and time consuming. Meanwhile companies continue to develop in the suburbs or exurbs, where carless inner city residents cannot reach them.
CERCLA needs to be radically revised. Basically, if a county has a certain level of unemployment (say 150% of the national average), CERCLA liability should be waived for any company which locates on an unused industrial property, as well as for its lenders. In order to ensure environmental responsibility, perhaps ISO 14000 registration within two years could be required.
This would most likely have to come from the GOP. As an example of how the national Democratic Party thinks of CERCLA, consider this. During the early days of the Clinton Administration, there was talk of prosecuting “polluting” industries located in disproportionately minority areas for civil rights violations based on “environmental racism”. This move was only squelched when big city mayors, mostly Democrats themselves, gave birth to porcupines (breech presentation) at the thought of losing even more jobs in their cities.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Separation Consistency
At the end of its most recent term, the United States Supreme Court made decisions in two cases involving the Ten Commandments. Many think these decisions were contradictory. They were not.
In the Texas case, it was ruled that a monument containing the text of the Ten Commandments did not violate the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. This was a good decision. The monument was outside, in a park containing other monuments, and clearly marked as having been purchased with private funds. There was no evidence that other religious groups had been denied the right to place similar monuments.
In the Kentucky case, the local courts stepped over the line. There, the Commandments were posted inside courtrooms, in a way that gave the distinct impression that the Court itself was endorsing their content. The Supreme Court here ruled that this implied endorsement was a violation of the Separation requirement.
The Supreme Court has stated that further rulings may be required. This is also true. The facts of future cases will be different. But so far, the rulings have been consistent with both the free exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.
Government may accomodate religion and religious groups. However, it may not do so on a preferential basis, nor may it take actions that promote one faith over another, or promote faith (or lack thereof) itself. Such actions take the risk of mixing the inherently coercive power of government with the pure conscience of religion.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the occasional attempts to use said power to promote religion is the degree of rhetoric we hear when they are restrained. Why is it so important to post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom that there must be a great uproar when it is ruled unacceptable? The only reason I can think of is a general disbelief in the separation of religion and government. This is dangerous. Said separation has made America the safest place in the world to practice any faith....or none at all.
At the end of its most recent term, the United States Supreme Court made decisions in two cases involving the Ten Commandments. Many think these decisions were contradictory. They were not.
In the Texas case, it was ruled that a monument containing the text of the Ten Commandments did not violate the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. This was a good decision. The monument was outside, in a park containing other monuments, and clearly marked as having been purchased with private funds. There was no evidence that other religious groups had been denied the right to place similar monuments.
In the Kentucky case, the local courts stepped over the line. There, the Commandments were posted inside courtrooms, in a way that gave the distinct impression that the Court itself was endorsing their content. The Supreme Court here ruled that this implied endorsement was a violation of the Separation requirement.
The Supreme Court has stated that further rulings may be required. This is also true. The facts of future cases will be different. But so far, the rulings have been consistent with both the free exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.
Government may accomodate religion and religious groups. However, it may not do so on a preferential basis, nor may it take actions that promote one faith over another, or promote faith (or lack thereof) itself. Such actions take the risk of mixing the inherently coercive power of government with the pure conscience of religion.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the occasional attempts to use said power to promote religion is the degree of rhetoric we hear when they are restrained. Why is it so important to post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom that there must be a great uproar when it is ruled unacceptable? The only reason I can think of is a general disbelief in the separation of religion and government. This is dangerous. Said separation has made America the safest place in the world to practice any faith....or none at all.
In defense of Marbury v. Madison.
A popular theme among some conservatives these days is to decry “judicial activism”. I think some basic premises are in error.
Certainly there have been times in our history where judges abused their power. Nevertheless, judicial restraint of the powers of government is a fundamentally Constitutional, and dare I even say fundamentally conservative principle.
Consider the role of the judge. It is, fundamentally, to decide if the law has been broken. He applies the law to the determined facts in a case, and decides if a violation has occurred.
The Constitution is, of course, the fundamental and supreme law of the United States of America. All other laws must conform to its stictures and requirements. As with any other law, the question of its enforcement is paramount. An unenforced law has no meaning.
So how is the Constitution to be enforced?
Should it be the job of the legislature to do so? Clearly not. The Framers made the process of amending the Constitution a difficult task. Far more than a majority is required. The legislature is a body that works on simple majority. That is how it is selected, and that is how it makes decisions. To give it the de facto authority to revise the requirements of the Constitution is clearly contrary to the Amendment process.
How about the Executive? The same majoritarian problem applies. The President is always subject to the whims of the mob. The Amendment process requires much more than a whim.
The Judiciary is the clear choice. Not only is their normal role the interpretation of the application of law, but they are insulated from the electoral process. The decisions of the Supreme Court can be revised, but it requires a Constitutional Amendment to do so. This gives the Amendment process, one of the keys to the strength of our Constitutional form of government, some teeth.
But doesn’t this give judges, particularly the Supreme Court, unrestrained power?
No. The nature of the judicial process places the following restraints:
- They may only consider facts brought before them and issues which are directly being challenged.
- They may only restrain government from implementing passed or existing laws. They may not order new laws put in place.
- They must justify their decisions based upon laws higher than the law passed, up to and including the Constitution.
But how do we ensure honesty on their part:
Two ways. The Executive and Congress approve judges. In cases of misconduct or malfeasance, Congress can remove them.
To be meaningful, a Constitution must be enforced even.....no, especially against violation by government entities. The Turkish Constitution assigns this duty to the military. I would say that our way is at least as effective, and institutionally far superior.
A popular theme among some conservatives these days is to decry “judicial activism”. I think some basic premises are in error.
Certainly there have been times in our history where judges abused their power. Nevertheless, judicial restraint of the powers of government is a fundamentally Constitutional, and dare I even say fundamentally conservative principle.
Consider the role of the judge. It is, fundamentally, to decide if the law has been broken. He applies the law to the determined facts in a case, and decides if a violation has occurred.
The Constitution is, of course, the fundamental and supreme law of the United States of America. All other laws must conform to its stictures and requirements. As with any other law, the question of its enforcement is paramount. An unenforced law has no meaning.
So how is the Constitution to be enforced?
Should it be the job of the legislature to do so? Clearly not. The Framers made the process of amending the Constitution a difficult task. Far more than a majority is required. The legislature is a body that works on simple majority. That is how it is selected, and that is how it makes decisions. To give it the de facto authority to revise the requirements of the Constitution is clearly contrary to the Amendment process.
How about the Executive? The same majoritarian problem applies. The President is always subject to the whims of the mob. The Amendment process requires much more than a whim.
The Judiciary is the clear choice. Not only is their normal role the interpretation of the application of law, but they are insulated from the electoral process. The decisions of the Supreme Court can be revised, but it requires a Constitutional Amendment to do so. This gives the Amendment process, one of the keys to the strength of our Constitutional form of government, some teeth.
But doesn’t this give judges, particularly the Supreme Court, unrestrained power?
No. The nature of the judicial process places the following restraints:
- They may only consider facts brought before them and issues which are directly being challenged.
- They may only restrain government from implementing passed or existing laws. They may not order new laws put in place.
- They must justify their decisions based upon laws higher than the law passed, up to and including the Constitution.
But how do we ensure honesty on their part:
Two ways. The Executive and Congress approve judges. In cases of misconduct or malfeasance, Congress can remove them.
To be meaningful, a Constitution must be enforced even.....no, especially against violation by government entities. The Turkish Constitution assigns this duty to the military. I would say that our way is at least as effective, and institutionally far superior.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Yes, I know it's morbid
I'm in my second year in an online Dead Pool. I suppose it's called the "Isfullofcrap" Dead Pool, it used to be called the Amish Tech Support Dead Pool (one of the all time great blog names IMO).
Check it out at The Dead Pool. If you enter, mention that your referral is "E Rocc".
I'm in my second year in an online Dead Pool. I suppose it's called the "Isfullofcrap" Dead Pool, it used to be called the Amish Tech Support Dead Pool (one of the all time great blog names IMO).
Check it out at The Dead Pool. If you enter, mention that your referral is "E Rocc".
Friday, November 05, 2004
Why The Democrats Lost
Okay, here’s why I think the Democrats lost. I’m going to try to keep ideology and any form of gloating out of this…even though I feel a big part of the reason Bush won is that his worldview is far closer to that of average Americans than Kerry’s is. Read if you like, accept what you want. Yes, in many ways these reflect the same mistakes the GOP made in 1996. Indeed, that’s probably what helped me spot them.
1) Hatred of the incumbent. The Democrats let this take over their thought process to the extent that they seemed to believe everyone shared their views. The fact is half the people who voted in 2000 cast their ballots for this man. When you criticize him on the visceral level that the left did, many of these people took it as implied criticism of themselves, for being dumb enough to vote for this guy. In this manner, the Bush-haters helped him shore up his base. The personal antipathy many Bush-haters developed for Bush supporters also shored up the beliefs of the latter while turning off the swing voters.
2) Underestimation of your opponent. In a way, this ties into reason 1. But not entirely. Reagan was nowhere near as hated as Bush was. Yet he was also underestimated. The evidence that he is more than a lightweight (his MBA, his six years as governor of Texas, indeed his Presidency) was dismissed, and so was the idea that, like Reagan, he had some sharp and competent people around him. Karl Rove may be the sole exception, and he was demonized. This of course played right into his hands. He could feed paranoia about him doing something dirty and make his opponents look one way, while either he or someone else did something clean and sharp in another direction.
3) Poor choice of candidate. The Democrats needed a Bill Clinton-type candidate to beat Bush this time around. Instead, they picked Mike Dukakis without the administrative experience. In a time where everyone would agree that leadership is crucial, they picked a man with not only no leadership experience, but a record of vacillation on key issues. That alone may have made the difference. This ties into reasons 1 and 2. There was an assumption that any nominee would beat Bush and electability was not a consideration.
Meanwhile, the Republicans struck back in the South. Is there a Democratic Senator or Governor left down there that makes a viable Presidential nominee? The record has held: The last Democratic presidential candidate not from the South or a “border state” to win was John F. Kennedy. Before that it was FDR, and before him Woodrow Wilson. In the process of giving the northeastern liberals a turn, the Democratic Party has gutted its only proven source of Presidential contenders.
4) Complete inability to understand, let alone fracture, the current Republican coalition. Its all well and good to snicker about rednecks and fundamentalist Christians, but they are only a part of the coalition. “Small-l” libertarians are an equally important component, though one regularly ignored by the Democratic Party. These two groups are fundamentally divided on many issues, yet the Democratic Party failed to even attempt to exploit these differences. The “Patriot Act” comes to mind, there is a strong segment of the GOP with very sharp reservations about it. Yet the Democratic Party was not only complicit in its passage and implementation, it added some of the more objectionable (to the libertarian Republicans) provisions.
Before Democratic Underground underwent its meltdown and switched over to “members only” (they are back, disgustingly enough), one poster suggested that the Democratic Party abandon its support for gun control. He immediately faced a barrage of sarcastic suggestions that they also abandon some far more central party positions. But in fact, this would be an absolutely brilliant approach. It’s one of the things that glues the libertarian Republicans to the GOP, even though many Republicans are squishy on the issue as well.
But I digress. The religious-libertarian alliance was crafted by Ronald Reagan and held together by his de facto policy that government should neither restrain nor affirm religion. It’s tenuous at best, but lately its best ally has been the Democratic Party.
5) The personal loyalty of the sharpest party professionals to the Clinton family. For the most part, they sat this one out. This helped Kerry get nominated, as the big guns weren’t working for anyone else. In the general however, that meant he was badly outgunned. Forget about Rove, who has never been on the losing side in an election. There’s probably five to ten strategists on the Bush side who were far better than anyone actively working for Kerry.
6) Misallocation of resources. The focus on young voters was misplaced. They didn’t turn out in much larger than normal numbers, and they only leaned slightly pro-Kerry when they did. He wasn’t the kind of candidate who was going to appeal to them, and it didn’t help that his kids came off haughty and aloof while the Bush twins came off as normal. The registration push, if anything, backfired. They thought they had all these new voters, but most had not registered for a reason and there were embarrassing scandals (ACT sending felons door to door, an NAACP official condoning the exchange of crack cocaine for what turned out to be faked registrations, etc…) that the Republicans were more than happy to jump on.
Okay, here’s why I think the Democrats lost. I’m going to try to keep ideology and any form of gloating out of this…even though I feel a big part of the reason Bush won is that his worldview is far closer to that of average Americans than Kerry’s is. Read if you like, accept what you want. Yes, in many ways these reflect the same mistakes the GOP made in 1996. Indeed, that’s probably what helped me spot them.
1) Hatred of the incumbent. The Democrats let this take over their thought process to the extent that they seemed to believe everyone shared their views. The fact is half the people who voted in 2000 cast their ballots for this man. When you criticize him on the visceral level that the left did, many of these people took it as implied criticism of themselves, for being dumb enough to vote for this guy. In this manner, the Bush-haters helped him shore up his base. The personal antipathy many Bush-haters developed for Bush supporters also shored up the beliefs of the latter while turning off the swing voters.
2) Underestimation of your opponent. In a way, this ties into reason 1. But not entirely. Reagan was nowhere near as hated as Bush was. Yet he was also underestimated. The evidence that he is more than a lightweight (his MBA, his six years as governor of Texas, indeed his Presidency) was dismissed, and so was the idea that, like Reagan, he had some sharp and competent people around him. Karl Rove may be the sole exception, and he was demonized. This of course played right into his hands. He could feed paranoia about him doing something dirty and make his opponents look one way, while either he or someone else did something clean and sharp in another direction.
3) Poor choice of candidate. The Democrats needed a Bill Clinton-type candidate to beat Bush this time around. Instead, they picked Mike Dukakis without the administrative experience. In a time where everyone would agree that leadership is crucial, they picked a man with not only no leadership experience, but a record of vacillation on key issues. That alone may have made the difference. This ties into reasons 1 and 2. There was an assumption that any nominee would beat Bush and electability was not a consideration.
Meanwhile, the Republicans struck back in the South. Is there a Democratic Senator or Governor left down there that makes a viable Presidential nominee? The record has held: The last Democratic presidential candidate not from the South or a “border state” to win was John F. Kennedy. Before that it was FDR, and before him Woodrow Wilson. In the process of giving the northeastern liberals a turn, the Democratic Party has gutted its only proven source of Presidential contenders.
4) Complete inability to understand, let alone fracture, the current Republican coalition. Its all well and good to snicker about rednecks and fundamentalist Christians, but they are only a part of the coalition. “Small-l” libertarians are an equally important component, though one regularly ignored by the Democratic Party. These two groups are fundamentally divided on many issues, yet the Democratic Party failed to even attempt to exploit these differences. The “Patriot Act” comes to mind, there is a strong segment of the GOP with very sharp reservations about it. Yet the Democratic Party was not only complicit in its passage and implementation, it added some of the more objectionable (to the libertarian Republicans) provisions.
Before Democratic Underground underwent its meltdown and switched over to “members only” (they are back, disgustingly enough), one poster suggested that the Democratic Party abandon its support for gun control. He immediately faced a barrage of sarcastic suggestions that they also abandon some far more central party positions. But in fact, this would be an absolutely brilliant approach. It’s one of the things that glues the libertarian Republicans to the GOP, even though many Republicans are squishy on the issue as well.
But I digress. The religious-libertarian alliance was crafted by Ronald Reagan and held together by his de facto policy that government should neither restrain nor affirm religion. It’s tenuous at best, but lately its best ally has been the Democratic Party.
5) The personal loyalty of the sharpest party professionals to the Clinton family. For the most part, they sat this one out. This helped Kerry get nominated, as the big guns weren’t working for anyone else. In the general however, that meant he was badly outgunned. Forget about Rove, who has never been on the losing side in an election. There’s probably five to ten strategists on the Bush side who were far better than anyone actively working for Kerry.
6) Misallocation of resources. The focus on young voters was misplaced. They didn’t turn out in much larger than normal numbers, and they only leaned slightly pro-Kerry when they did. He wasn’t the kind of candidate who was going to appeal to them, and it didn’t help that his kids came off haughty and aloof while the Bush twins came off as normal. The registration push, if anything, backfired. They thought they had all these new voters, but most had not registered for a reason and there were embarrassing scandals (ACT sending felons door to door, an NAACP official condoning the exchange of crack cocaine for what turned out to be faked registrations, etc…) that the Republicans were more than happy to jump on.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Creation Science Demands New Attention
The creation science community is in an uproar. They claimed to have found new and compelling evidence that the Universe was indeed created as written in Genesis. Their new find: this memo written by God himself, outlining the time frame for Creation
The memo has been authenticated by several authorities on Biblical documentation, including Brother Harry of the Landover Baptist Church in Freehold, Iowa.
No word yet from CBS News regarding a possible special.
The creation science community is in an uproar. They claimed to have found new and compelling evidence that the Universe was indeed created as written in Genesis. Their new find: this memo written by God himself, outlining the time frame for Creation
The memo has been authenticated by several authorities on Biblical documentation, including Brother Harry of the Landover Baptist Church in Freehold, Iowa.
No word yet from CBS News regarding a possible special.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Thoughts On The Fourth Of July
Eleven score and eight years ago, our forefathers began the codification of a concept that would revolutionize not only this land, but this planet.
The Declaration of Independence was a radical document for its day. It decreed that all men possessed the same fundamental rights and prerogatives, that no man had a right, divinely or otherwise inspired, to sovereignty over the lives of others. In particular, it declared that no man could override the conscience of others. This was a refutation of virtually every form of government existing during that time.
While the Declaration mentioned a supreme Deity, the mention was only in passing. Indeed, the very words were written by a man who by most standards of his day, was a religious dissenter. Certainly he was a member of a religious minority, as a Deist. He kept the wording neutral, regarding matters of faith. A Deist wrote those words, yet a Jew, a Moslem, or any type of Christian could embrace them without reservation.
Significantly, the removal of the necessity of a divinely inspired monarch removed any need for a religious basis for government. Some men, such as Patrick Henry and Luther Martin, felt that the new nation's government should still be based upon Christian principles, and Christianity should receive special status. Others disagreed.
Those who felt that religion and government should be separate included both firm believers in the divinity of Christ, and those who remained unconvinced. Madison is perhaps the best example of the former. A strong Christian, he nevertheless recognized that a Nation which established Christianity as a whole would be under political pressure to eventually recognize one sect. In "A Memorial and Remonstrance", he wrote:
Even ministers saw benefits to the removal of government influence in religion. In the words of Isaac Backus:
Conversely, Jefferson and Franklin remained personally unconvinced of the divinity of Christ, but on a practical basis, approved of religion as a positive influence on people's lives. Thomas Paine excoriated the influence of religion upon government, but claimed it to be government's responsibility to protect religious minorities.
One thing held these men together: a belief that human intellect and reason had advanced far enough that men could govern their own affairs based upon firm and logical principles applicable to all and subject to periodic refinement and modification. This meant that religion was no longer needed as a basis for government, and all men could worship and practice according to their own conscience.
By no means did this mean that they felt religion had no use to men as individuals. Their own actions and words suggest otherwise. Nor did they maintain that religion had never been an important part of governance. In primitive cultures, "because God(s) said so" can certainly take on the role that "because Mom said so" takes on with three year olds. Even in more advanced cultures, religion can provide a common ground upon which consistent values can be applied. What they believed was that this was no longer necessary, and liberty had become practical.
Another factor is often overlooked. Many of the thirteen colonies had established faiths. They often differed from one another. The Puritans of Massachusetts, Catholics of Maryland, Quakers of Pennsylvania, and Episcopalians of Virginia often disagreed on matters of dogma. The affiliation of the national government would be a point of no small contention, and indeed a source of disunity or worse. The Thirty Years War was as recent to these men as the Civil War is to us. Governmental non-affiliation made this potential problem go away.
When the Constitutional Convention was convened, non-affiliation had become the near-consensus view of the Framers. While some men like Luther Martin objected, the document eschewed even the nominal nod to a Deity that the Declaration embraced. It went as far as to specifically state that there would be no religious tests for political office at any time. The Bill of Rights went further, saying that the Government may not grant special status to any faiths or group of faiths, and may not restrict the religious liberties of individuals. It was a powerful statement, and a radical experiment.
This experiment, though not perfectly implemented at times, has been wildly successful. America is the safest place in the world to be a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Baptist, a Buddhist, or an atheist. Have some been harassed or oppressed because of their faith? Yes, but far less than any other nation.
The compact is simple, you may practice your religion as you wish, but you may not impede others from doing likewise, nor ask special favors from the government. It has worked...But it is still sometimes threatened. From both sides.
When Roy Moore puts a multi-ton block of rock in an official place in a government building, he is attempting to place official government sanction on the statements it includes. When those statements include words like "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" and "thou shalt not make a graven image" (without observation on the irony of circumstance), they directly contradict the specific promises of the First Amendment. Likewise, when one religious viewpoint is given a spot on a government body's formal agenda, preference is being shown. Even if it's a simple affirmation than that the Nation is somehow subordinate to a Deity. Indeed, since this concept appears nowhere in the Constitution, especially so.
However, the anti-religious also cross this line on a regular basis. When a child in a school chooses to wear religious attire to school, to read the Bible during study hall, or to use his faith as background for a project with a secular educational purpose, the school is not violating the Establishment Clause. The Constitution does not forbid religion, and indeed forbids the suppression of religious exercise. As long as the rules are the same for all faiths, there is no Constitutional issue.
Both sides endanger a concept that has worked. Strong believers often confuse their beliefs with facts. It is a temptation that is undoubtedly a part of human nature. America has done a very good job of squelching it, of separating the pure conscience of true religion from the inherently compulsive power of government. However, we must remain vigilant and ensure that Jefferson's wall is not breached by either the ultra-religious or the anti-religious.
-Eric
Eleven score and eight years ago, our forefathers began the codification of a concept that would revolutionize not only this land, but this planet.
The Declaration of Independence was a radical document for its day. It decreed that all men possessed the same fundamental rights and prerogatives, that no man had a right, divinely or otherwise inspired, to sovereignty over the lives of others. In particular, it declared that no man could override the conscience of others. This was a refutation of virtually every form of government existing during that time.
While the Declaration mentioned a supreme Deity, the mention was only in passing. Indeed, the very words were written by a man who by most standards of his day, was a religious dissenter. Certainly he was a member of a religious minority, as a Deist. He kept the wording neutral, regarding matters of faith. A Deist wrote those words, yet a Jew, a Moslem, or any type of Christian could embrace them without reservation.
Significantly, the removal of the necessity of a divinely inspired monarch removed any need for a religious basis for government. Some men, such as Patrick Henry and Luther Martin, felt that the new nation's government should still be based upon Christian principles, and Christianity should receive special status. Others disagreed.
Those who felt that religion and government should be separate included both firm believers in the divinity of Christ, and those who remained unconvinced. Madison is perhaps the best example of the former. A strong Christian, he nevertheless recognized that a Nation which established Christianity as a whole would be under political pressure to eventually recognize one sect. In "A Memorial and Remonstrance", he wrote:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Even ministers saw benefits to the removal of government influence in religion. In the words of Isaac Backus:
Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state not because they are beneath the interests of the state, but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state.
Conversely, Jefferson and Franklin remained personally unconvinced of the divinity of Christ, but on a practical basis, approved of religion as a positive influence on people's lives. Thomas Paine excoriated the influence of religion upon government, but claimed it to be government's responsibility to protect religious minorities.
One thing held these men together: a belief that human intellect and reason had advanced far enough that men could govern their own affairs based upon firm and logical principles applicable to all and subject to periodic refinement and modification. This meant that religion was no longer needed as a basis for government, and all men could worship and practice according to their own conscience.
By no means did this mean that they felt religion had no use to men as individuals. Their own actions and words suggest otherwise. Nor did they maintain that religion had never been an important part of governance. In primitive cultures, "because God(s) said so" can certainly take on the role that "because Mom said so" takes on with three year olds. Even in more advanced cultures, religion can provide a common ground upon which consistent values can be applied. What they believed was that this was no longer necessary, and liberty had become practical.
Another factor is often overlooked. Many of the thirteen colonies had established faiths. They often differed from one another. The Puritans of Massachusetts, Catholics of Maryland, Quakers of Pennsylvania, and Episcopalians of Virginia often disagreed on matters of dogma. The affiliation of the national government would be a point of no small contention, and indeed a source of disunity or worse. The Thirty Years War was as recent to these men as the Civil War is to us. Governmental non-affiliation made this potential problem go away.
When the Constitutional Convention was convened, non-affiliation had become the near-consensus view of the Framers. While some men like Luther Martin objected, the document eschewed even the nominal nod to a Deity that the Declaration embraced. It went as far as to specifically state that there would be no religious tests for political office at any time. The Bill of Rights went further, saying that the Government may not grant special status to any faiths or group of faiths, and may not restrict the religious liberties of individuals. It was a powerful statement, and a radical experiment.
This experiment, though not perfectly implemented at times, has been wildly successful. America is the safest place in the world to be a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Baptist, a Buddhist, or an atheist. Have some been harassed or oppressed because of their faith? Yes, but far less than any other nation.
The compact is simple, you may practice your religion as you wish, but you may not impede others from doing likewise, nor ask special favors from the government. It has worked...But it is still sometimes threatened. From both sides.
When Roy Moore puts a multi-ton block of rock in an official place in a government building, he is attempting to place official government sanction on the statements it includes. When those statements include words like "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" and "thou shalt not make a graven image" (without observation on the irony of circumstance), they directly contradict the specific promises of the First Amendment. Likewise, when one religious viewpoint is given a spot on a government body's formal agenda, preference is being shown. Even if it's a simple affirmation than that the Nation is somehow subordinate to a Deity. Indeed, since this concept appears nowhere in the Constitution, especially so.
However, the anti-religious also cross this line on a regular basis. When a child in a school chooses to wear religious attire to school, to read the Bible during study hall, or to use his faith as background for a project with a secular educational purpose, the school is not violating the Establishment Clause. The Constitution does not forbid religion, and indeed forbids the suppression of religious exercise. As long as the rules are the same for all faiths, there is no Constitutional issue.
Both sides endanger a concept that has worked. Strong believers often confuse their beliefs with facts. It is a temptation that is undoubtedly a part of human nature. America has done a very good job of squelching it, of separating the pure conscience of true religion from the inherently compulsive power of government. However, we must remain vigilant and ensure that Jefferson's wall is not breached by either the ultra-religious or the anti-religious.
-Eric
Sunday, May 16, 2004
The Quintessential Democrat
There's a reason that, other than Clinton and some judicial candidates, Ohio hasn't voted statewide for a Democrat since 1992. The party is in complete disarray and stands, like the national party, for nothing beyond establishing power for itself. Since it has no power as it stands, its in a vicious circle of sorts. Quite frankly, unless the Democrats dump Kerry, I think Bush is a lock to carry Ohio.
They did get one thing right. On his TV show, Jerry Springer is indeed the quintessential Democrat. He exudes phony concerns, offers nothing more than feigned sympathy and hoary platitudes, and generally makes things worse whenever he opens his mouth.
Eventually things get out of hand, and Steve Wilkos steps in. Steve has little to say, but when he talks it makes sense. He's the one that gets called on to restore order, and does it quickly and efficiently. He's an ex-marine and an ex(?)-cop. Most guys with that background vote Republican, except perhaps in Chicago.
Springer's the perfect symbol of the Democratic Party. Wilkos symbolizes the Republicans.
By the way, yes, I know the show is staged. It's a parody of the other shows. That's what makes it watchable sometimes (like in a bar, drinking with others and making fun of it...LOL)
-Eric
May 15, 2004 | CINCINNATI (AP) -- Ohio Democrats have chosen talk-show host Jerry Springer to be an at-large delegate for the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
"He's made 50 appearances at Democratic events this year. He's been an outspoken advocate for the party," said Dan Trevas, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party.
Springer, who was the mayor of Cincinnati before hosting the raunchy "The Jerry Springer Show," was named Democrat of the Year by the state party last weekend. He was named Friday as one of 159 delegates and 24 alternates from Ohio at the convention July 26-29, when Sen. John Kerry is expected to be nominated as the party's candidate for president.
"We welcome all delegates," said Jennifer Palmieri, Ohio spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign.
State Republicans said Democrats sank low by naming Springer as a delegate.
"They ought to be absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of this guy, but obviously standards take a back seat to power in the party of Bill Clinton," Ohio Republican chairman Robert T. Bennett said.
Springer, 60, spent about $1 million last year exploring whether to run for the Senate before deciding not to challenge incumbent Republican Sen. George Voinovich. He said he realized he couldn't be elected as long as he continued to host his syndicated talk show.
Springer is considering running in 2006 for either Ohio governor or for the state's other Senate seat.
There's a reason that, other than Clinton and some judicial candidates, Ohio hasn't voted statewide for a Democrat since 1992. The party is in complete disarray and stands, like the national party, for nothing beyond establishing power for itself. Since it has no power as it stands, its in a vicious circle of sorts. Quite frankly, unless the Democrats dump Kerry, I think Bush is a lock to carry Ohio.
They did get one thing right. On his TV show, Jerry Springer is indeed the quintessential Democrat. He exudes phony concerns, offers nothing more than feigned sympathy and hoary platitudes, and generally makes things worse whenever he opens his mouth.
Eventually things get out of hand, and Steve Wilkos steps in. Steve has little to say, but when he talks it makes sense. He's the one that gets called on to restore order, and does it quickly and efficiently. He's an ex-marine and an ex(?)-cop. Most guys with that background vote Republican, except perhaps in Chicago.
Springer's the perfect symbol of the Democratic Party. Wilkos symbolizes the Republicans.
By the way, yes, I know the show is staged. It's a parody of the other shows. That's what makes it watchable sometimes (like in a bar, drinking with others and making fun of it...LOL)
-Eric