Don't Disarm Good People

The following is in response to this article.

I agree totally with allowing citizens to keep and bare arms, and I believe that outlawing this has no positive effect on how many gun related crimes will be committed. Consider the idea of “gun control” for a moment. It would consist of laws that restrict or prohibit completely, the possessing of guns by private citizens. Now, who is it that carry out these horrible crimes that these laws are meant to stop? The answer is, the same criminals who will find a way to do it whether there is a law against having a gun or not. When these crimes are committed they are just that, crimes, the breaking of laws. Do you really think that making it illegal to own a gun will make the criminal say “oh well, I would commit this crime but I’m not allowed to have a gun so I guess I’ll just go home.” Of course not.

Now there is the argument that if guns are harder to get it will cut down on many of the gun related crimes. However, England enacted very strict gun control laws in 1997 pretty much outlawing citizen ownership of any kind of firearm and over 160,000 now outlawed guns were turned into authorities by the honest law abiding citizens. As a result, the good people of Great Brittan have suffered a doubling of gun related crimes since handing in their weapons.

The bottom line is, criminals don’t obey laws including ones telling them that they can’t use guns to commit their crimes. To ban firearms, as was proven in England, will only take guns out of the hands of the honest people who’s only purpose in having a gun in the first place is to protect themselves from those who wish to harm them. A much more effective way to cut down on these crimes would probably be to increase the number of legal firearms in the general public because a crook would think a lot harder about walking in and holding up a gas station if he new that just about everyone in there was “packing 9.”

Vote for Thought, Not Just Opinion

"Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Edmund Burke

What is it that we look for in someone when we are choosing him for office? Is it someone we think will simply vote the way we want him to? Is it someone who says the things that we agree with, or someone we think will present legislation that we want to see passed? I think when Burke made this statement it was a call for people to remember that their elected representation in the government is not only their voice, but also their eyes and ears. It is that official’s responsibility to take in the information on issues and policies and respond to it with his or her best judgment.

Take the war in Iraq for example. A few years ago, shortly after 9-11-01, there was very strong support of the president when he deployed troops to respond to the threats of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The congress, including several presidential hopefuls in the 2004 election, voted almost unanimously to send the troops. As we came closer to this election and public frustration with the duration of the military operations in Iraq began to grow, some of these same congressmen began to change what they said about the war. The trouble here is not whether the issue of going to war was right or wrong in the first place, but that elected officials were bending there positions based on public popular opinion.

I have some respect for the President, not because I agree with what he has done in the war, but because the entire way, he has upheld his stance on it and not wavered from the task that his original judgment called him to take on. The President would be doing his country a disservice if he changed his stance every time the public started making noise about it. He is supposed to represent the will of the people and we have a system for that. It is that we can elect whomever we think will make the judgments that best represent what we need and believe. If we decide that someone isn’t making those judgments effectively, we can vote him out.

Media's Problem

The following is in response to an article entitled: The Media Throughout the Years

I agree with your ideas here. The news media has definitely become motivated by things other than the pursuit of truth and finding the real story. It is indeed frustrating that you have to go to several different sources to try to paint a picture of what is really going on with a particular issue and you are lucky if you can do it even at that point. What we have to remember here is that the news media is a money driven industry just like everything else in our nation and the overall factor that they consider when reporting is “will this story and the way we report it sell?” That is why tuning in for the nightly news is often a very dark and depressing experience when you think about it. Murders, robberies, rape, homes burning down, how bad the economy is… the list of very typical news stories goes on and on and the only place where it doesn’t seem to be depressing is in the sports reports (if your team won that is), and even those are becoming tainted with drug scandal, and athletes getting arrested for breaking the law. Unfortunately, shocking and disturbing sells. People don’t feel like they need to tune in to see what’s going on if all is right with the world, but if they are worried about the next bad thing to happen, or what the next shocking revelation about some politician is, they have to listen to the news to get the answers. Unfortunately, as our society becomes more and more desensitized to these kinds of things, the media will get even worse.

"Bad officials are elected by good people who do not vote."

This quote from George Jean Nathan brings up an important issue about the function of our government. The question has been raised about whether one persons vote really matters in the grand scheme of things. The idea that you don't need to vote in national elections because you have a better chance of winning the lotto than your vote being the deciding factor in an election has been postulated but let us explore a different set of reasons as to why a vote matters.

When our country was born, many gave their lives in order to gain the freedom to choose for themselves how and by whom they would be governed. Throughout our history, when our freedoms have come under attack, men and woman in this great nation have not hesitated to offer their lives to protect them. The cost of this freedom is not cheap. It is the blood of our own people, and to take it lightly is the greatest insult and disservice that one can do to his country and himself. To vote is the most significant way that we can influence the democracy that provides our freedom.

When George Jean Nathan made this statement, I think he struck a very important point. In the past two decades, voter turnout in the country has fluctuated around fifty percent. Only half of this country’s free people are taking part in its democracy. I don’t think that when a “bad official” is elected, that he truly reflects the views of the majority of the people that he is supposed to represent. It is the negligence of the good people that allows someone unfit to be elected. If most of the people in this state and country would vote on its leaders, I think “bad officials” would be almost non existent in our government.

The government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” can only work if the people take up its responsibilities. We elect representatives from among ourselves to act as our voices to the rest of our nation, and the rest of the world. When these persons do not do what is best for us and our country, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Many times I have listened to fellow Americans voice their concern and frustration with leadership in the government but when asked if they voted they respond that they didn’t. How can you be angry with someone else for the problems that occur if you didn’t do your part to try and prevent them? Before you complain that others aren’t doing as they should, do your part to help the situation; go out and vote!

In whose hands are we safest?

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5/4 decision that it will now be up to federal courts, and not the trials committees appointed by congress and the president, to rule on the validity of holding people captured on foreign soil as enemy combatants. In an editorial debate on USA Today’s web site, there are two sides represented as to how to interpret this ruling. On the one hand you have the side that sees the court’s ruling as reaffirming American values and the right to habeas corpus. It points out that many prisoners have been held at GitMo for years without justifiable cause. This may be true, however the opposing view in the opposition article cites one of the dissenting judges remarks that “at least 30 former Guantanamo detainees returned to the battlefield to resume their war against the United States.” The opposition goes on to call the ruling a power grab by the Supreme Court and warns that “Judges should keep the potentially lethal consequences in mind before they contemplate overruling military experts and ordering additional releases.”

A very interesting debate to be sure. Should the judiciary be taking on itself the duty of determining enemy combatants in a time of war? It is unprecedented and the court could not cite any particular part of the constitution nor previous case that granted them this right but argued that “the doctrine that it was upholding is enshrined in the Constitution.” Another question is, as foreign aliens and prisoners of war, should the detainees even have the right of habeas corpus and be treated by the courts almost like citizens of the United States? The president and congress don’t seem to think so but at the same time they want to spread our ideals of freedom and democracy around the world and the right to fair trial was one of the most important ingredients that the founding fathers sought to include in our government. But are the courts more capable than the military tribunals of determining who is a threat and who is not? Yet to be seen.

And what of the charges by the executive and legislative against the judicial of a power grab? Is this a Marbury vs. Madison type defining moment in the relationship between the branches of government? It wouldn’t seem to carry that much weight but it does appear to be an assertion by the Supreme Court of its authority over the other branches in an area that it had not previously exercised power. The question of who’s authority will prevail in the trial of foreign prisoners of war seems to have been answered by the ruling today. But the question remains, in whose hands is the nation safer from the threat of terrorists, the military review empowered by the President and Congress, or the Judicial Courts? We will just have to hope, the courts.

One Person, One Vote?

An editorial in the New York Times yesterday broached the issue of the need for change in the system for presidential primary elections in our country. Each party does it differently under their own guide lines, but as we saw with the primaries this year, and as the editorial points out, there are some problems with the two party’s systems. The editorial puts it this way, “A guiding principle behind American democracy is ‘one person, one vote.’ All voters should have an equal opportunity, regardless of who they are or where they live, to affect the outcome. The process should be transparent, the ballot should be secret, and there should be no unnecessary barriers to voting.” This is a principal that does seem to be threatened by the current primary systems and the editorial goes on to explain some of the ways that this principal is being affected.

One of the most apparent flaws with the idea of each person’s vote being equal is the use in the Democratic Party’s system of “super delegates.” The editorial makes a good point that having delegates that do not represent the voting members of the party and who have the power to potentially decide the outcome of the election does not fall in line with the idea of popular election. The case made by the article against the Republican system’s use of a winner take all method in many states and districts is somewhat contradictory though. If the idea is one person, one vote, then why is a majority winner of a popular vote not worthy of that areas delegates? Now the argument could be made about the presidents who have taken office via the Electoral College but without the popular majority. However, if the Electoral College or the delegate system in the primaries were to be abolished, than the presidents would be elected by city dwellers in the largest of our nation’s cities and many people would completely lose their stake in the decision.

The Senate rules committee is apparently going to be taking these things into consideration very soon but the author of this editorial laments rightly that “insiders do not always have the interests of ordinary voters at heart.” Could all of these problems be rooted deeper than just the wrong set of rules for party elections? When designing our system the founding fathers created a republic with safe guards against a simple majority rule democracy. Apparent in their fear of ruling factions it would seem as though they never intended there to be political parties in the first place. As the editorial points out in its closing, “Whoever takes action, the goal should be a new and improved nominating process that reflects the will of the people.” But perhaps party nominated candidates are not the best way to “reflect the will of the people” after all. Definitely something to think about!

The New Debate

According to an article on foxnews.com today, on the day after the Democratic primary seems to be over, Presidential hopeful John McCain has taken the first step towards debates in the campaign between himself and presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama, but with a non traditional twist. The article includes a letter from senator McCain to senator Obama proposing that they travel together for the next ten weeks holding a number of town hall style debates without much of the artificial glamour and scripted questions that have come to define presidential debates in recent elections. “I don’t think we need any big media run productions, no process questions from reporters, no spin rooms– just two Americans running for the highest office of the greatest nation on earth and responding to the concerns of the people whose trust we must earn,” said McCain in his letter to Obama. In a campaign that has focused so much on change, this would be a historic gesture for both candidates and would probably interest Americans who are looking for something more real from the candidates. The article “McCain proposes joint town hall meetings” by Mosheh Oinounou, is definitely worth reading as the idea could be the precursor to a truly historic change in the way presidential debates are conducted in the future.