I am not a fan of "special" interest groups. It sometimes seems
to me that they are just this side of blackmail organizations...
"Pass this law that gives us power or we'll make sure our
members don't vote for you." Conversely, I can see the need
for groups that lobby the government on behalf of the people
because, without someone to speak for the "common man," our voice
would never be heard.
I believe that what you refer to as blackmail organizations
might actually apply to certain groups (i.e. Acorn), but for
the most part if legislators do not have their arms twisted
every once in a while, they tend to forget (at least as
demonstrated in their statements and votes) that it is groups
of influential people (or those passionate about a given issue)
that need to remind these legislators why they are holding
positions of political office in the first place: they are
there to represent their constituents.
It is true that I tend to think of the "special"
interest groups when this topic comes up. Not all interest groups
are so self-serving. And I agree that our elected representatives
should actually represent us. That seems to be a very foreign
idea on Capitol Hill anymore.
Of course, many of us have heard the old bromide —
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease"; and it is true in
politics. Unfortunately, the voices of traditional values,
whereupon this country was founded, are not lobbied enough
The phrase "traditional values whereupon this
country was founded," and its kin, is used allot but it is such a
nebulous one. Whose "traditional values?" The Quakers? The
Puritans? The Intellectuals? The plantation owners? The
industrialists? The Atheists? Slave owners? Every one of these
groups was represented by our Founding Fathers. What traditions
are we going to base out values on?
Marriage is not a legal affirmation; it is a covenant
between a man and a woman in matrimony, which is recognized by
the state for taxation and property purposes. The issue is not
to say who is and is not in love; it is to say who can and who
cannot be recognized as entering into marriage.
You are correct in that marriage is not a legal
affirmation. Marriage is, in fact, a social and cultural
invention created for the purpose of economic, social and
political gain. It isn't even necessary for the propagation of
the species, though it does help in that matter. The concept of
it being a "covenant between a man and a woman in matrimony" is a
relatively recent phenomenon.
Finally, how does a pair of same-sex individuals propagate
their family, the culture, the nation?
How does a pair of blond individuals propagate their
family, the culture, the nation? How does a pair of brown-eyed
individuals propagate their family, the culture, the nation? How
does a pair of [insert racial/ethnic designation] individuals
propagate their family, the culture, the nation? How does a pair
of dwarfs propagate their family, the culture, the nation?
The notion of what helps the human race is purely set upon
the basis of an individual's and group's "world view."
Essentially all so-called world views boil down to one of
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Those that
believe the former also know that their God gave the human race
free will. That is the basis of what government is built on. It
is also the basis of the Constitution; religion should not be an
integral part of our government.
Personally, I throw my lot in with the much simpler,
yet more profound world view (that being the former).
- The space-time manifold (or universe) was created by
God, and He determines what notion helps the human
- The space-time manifold (or universe) was the product
of disorganized, lifeless energy-matter states that somehow
became organized into stable energy-matter states that could
support life; and then life itself somehow emerged on to the
scene to point at which it exists today over a vast amount of
time. This life now directs itself as to what is best for
itself without full knowledge of the entirety of all that is
contained within this space-time manifold (or
The confusion many have concerning how to best help the
human race seems to come in the form of environment
restrictions so pervasive that if I wanted to develop a product
that would allow mankind to mine asteroids and refine their
products for marketing valuable rare-earth ores (an essential
ingredient for much of our products), and then bring the
material safely back to Earth (specifically here in
California), the EPA and the FAA would have a "field day" with
me (e.g. launching/landing facilities, hazardous materials
handling, nuclear and propulsion systems manufacturing and
production, airspace and local Earth space clearances, and the
list goes on). What is sad about all of this, is that the large
number of jobs that could be created would be eliminated by the
nearly impossible demands and fees of regulatory commissions
bent upon upholding their own agenda at the cost of
others’ freedoms to engage in entrepreneurialism.
For the most part, I agree with you on this point.
While being concerned with, and trying to better the environment
of our planet is something we all should be concerned with, the
whole Global Warming/Climate Change/"Inconvenient Truth"
hypocrisy was created as a way for some people to make a ton of
money. Is climate change happening? Yes, no doubt. Is it due to
the reasons that the aforementioned groups rant about? Not in the
least. All reputable science has proven that six ways from
You mentioned Financial Reform. This term is so vague that
one might as well be standing in the midst of a thick fog at
midnight. I have heard that those who manage money must be
"held to account;" very well, held to what standard, and based
upon whose statues? Should anyone be allowed to have large sums
of money for the purposes of investment and job creation? The
government does not realize (or are feigning ignorance for
their own bad decisions), that they are not the source of job
creation in this economy – those who have working capital
and are willing to invest in a business are the ones who can
create jobs. I have heard that more regulation needs to be in
place on Wall Street; but what does that really mean? Does it
mean that there is something going on there that needs actual
oversight, or is it that the powers that be do not like that
certain entities are making more of a profit than some
prescribed amount? Technically the economy, and hence the stock
exchange, manages itself. Eventually, the market finds its
median performance quotas, and consumers (not the government)
regulate how much profiteers make.
Would that this were true. Unfortunately the changes
in regulations over the last couple of decades have interfered
with the self-correcting abilities of the market. If things were
able to manage themselves we would have the situations in Greece,
Italy and South America (to name a few) that we have now. How can
this be "fixed?" I don't have a clue. The problem isn't with
regulations or market fluctuations and such. It is a cultural
one. Greed has become a virtue for many. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with making a profit. There is no requirement to be
philanthropic and give a portion of said profit to anyone. But
there is something wrong with looking at the world as a
zero sum game.
Certain things, like futures trading and a bunch of other things
I can't remember off-hand right now, were regulated into
existence for the sole reason of making huge profits at the
expense of everyone and everything else. These are the things
that need changed if we're going to keep from crashing into a
global depression that will make the crash of 1929 look like good
Everyone should shoulder their fair share of the economic
burden? If, by this the issue of taxation is to be inferred,
then this platitude is a source of great contention. Those who
receive a tax refund do not pay any taxes in the first place,
yet those who are in the top 5% of income in this country
(about $160,000 annually and up) pay more than half of the
taxes — is that fair? Why not have everyone
pay a flat tax — say 10% of income? That would be
Other than the statement about "[t]hose who receive
a tax refund do not pay any taxes in the first place" being
utterly and ridiculously wrong, I can't argue with your point
about the top five percent. Tax refunds are, at best, a small
percentage of the amount of taxes one pays.
In any event, history will reveal to future generations
fortunate enough to have wisdom to understand our present
machinations — I only hope our decisions will be cast in
favor of wise preservation and not reckless abandon and
foolishness.As long as there are Democrats and Republicans,
liberals and conservatives, conservationists and industrialists,
socialists and capitalists, ad nausea, there will always be
recklessness and foolishness. It is, unfortunately, human nature.