I want to comment on some of the point made here. The electoral college of today is not what the founding fathers imagined. Yes Lawrence Watson says:
"The electoral college was invented when the founding fathers believed the people were generally too ignorant to choose"
but also they feared that people could be herded like sheep by a demagogue. There isn't even any rule or law that says that people in a state get to vote and the majority decides where the state's electoral votes go. Throughout our nation's early history electoral votes were just assigned by governors or decided by vote by the state legislature (this lasted into the 1840s for the last holdout, South Carolina).
mrbill says:
"I think the Founders knew exactly what they were doing. The last thing we all need is New York and Los Angeles dominating our national policy."
Together New York City and LA, along with their metropolitan areas make up 10% of the United States' population. They are certainly more liberal cities, but if one were to suggest that all the voters within them are socialist, communist, bleeding-heart atheist bleeding-heart liberal democrats, they would be quite wrong, and there are many conservative areas of the country with significant populations (if there weren't there couldn't be a strong Republican Party and John Kerry couldn't have lost both the popular and electoral votes). Furthermore, pandering to the wants and needs of New York and California doesn't allow a candidate to win (since Gore and Kerry won these states, among many others, and still didn't become president), so there really is no fear of having a candidate elected on a platform written entirely by these places. And of course, there are Republicans in NY and California, as well as Democrats in Texas, so removal of the electoral college doesn't strengthen any position, liberal or conservative to any great extent, it just makes the entire process more fair.
Is prostitution considered freedom of expression?
To make it legal, the best way might be to start a branch religion that says that it is a tenet of their beliefs that the way to know their supreme being is through copulation. After all, there is a cult in New Mexico that is allowed to legally go on acid trips as it allows them to expand their mind toward their creator or something like that. I would think that one could argue freedom of expression since that covers actions (and wrap it as prostitution as a protest that prostitution is illegal), but if not, the religion way would most certainly work.
Intelligent Design out of public schools
Yes, funds do come from the taxpayers, but since they don't write checks directly to their local school district and it does pass through the hands of the government, then the funding cannot be spent on the teaching of a religious belief, especially in the context of a science class. Evolution is still extremely well-supported, whereas the support of ID comes from making pinpricks at the theory and suggesting that life is too complicated, but neither of these is proof for that idea. I say "idea" because I will not use the term "theory" for ID, which would lift it to the level of the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of General Relativity, and the Theory of Evolution.
Teaching more ideas does add to the education a person receives, but they must be appropriate ones. We learn about Lamarck's idea of use-and-disuse because it was a competing theory that was disproved scientifically. Learning an idea like ID is dangerous because it is an unproven and unprovable farce, and impressionable children should not be exposed to it as a legitimate explanation for life on earth.
As for the doctors; a person who understands how life works and came to be down to the level of the amino acids, the triglycerides, phospolipid bilayers, and nucleic acids will be a better and more knowledgeable person on the issues of the human body than someone who doesn't understand how all that works and came to be because they think everything just showed up a few days after God said "let there be light". On medicine, during the reign of Charlemagne during the 9th century, something like 12 to 16 percent of women who died did so during childbirth, showing the poor design that modern medicine has luckily fixed in developed countries at least.
Intelligent Design out of public schools
You are quite correct that the original Darwinian Evolution theory was not right, and that scientists are still modifying the theory to make it the true explanation of the natural world is also the case. But evolution can be tested and can be made more correct with new data, which cannot be said for the Biblical account of creation.
That being said, I will respond to your insistence that I discuss why evolution should be out of public schools. Public schools get their funding from the government, and this nation has as one of its founding protocols that the state and church(es) shall be separate. If a school receives no federal or state funding, then yes, it should be free to teach whatever curriculum it wishes, but if it receives a portion of the taxes I pay, then it shall not advocate a religious theory about the diversity of life, as that would favor a religion (and even if every religious group's ideas were taught, that would be the government advocating the teaching of religion in general). Evolution may not be correct absolutely, but it is the favored theory by the vast majority of scientists, and by being labeled as a "theory" it means that although absolute proof to its accuracy is lacking, the available data does corroborate the idea.
This point is less arguable than the previous one, and I am sure someone will poke holes in it, but I will make it anyway. The teaching of evolution specifically, and the sciences in general, are necessary to ensure that America remains a great nation. Even now, our students score lower on standardized math and science tests than students in other nations; the other nations that also have a higher percent of students go into math, engineering, and hard sciences fields than we do. This century will be one of trials for America and the world, we have a great number of problems to deal with as a species, and as a nation, only continued leadership in the sciences will keep us ahead of the rest of the world in technology, standard of living, etc. When we must come up with solutions to the difficulties that we shall face, I would much rather have people who have learned about the sciences and can solve the problem with that knowledge and exposure than those who believe God did everything whom I believe would be less qualified to find solutions. Here's a YouTube for amusement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM
And they claim to be in support of the constitution?
How can this party be in support of the US Constitution when their stances, especially the social ones are very much in opposition to its text?
- First, children born in the United States are guaranteed citizenship, no matter how their parents ended up here. Perhaps we should go back to the record and strip the rights off anyone who has an ancestor who got onto a boat from the old world by sneeking aboard. I am pretty sure that all my ancestors paid for their passage, are these people.
- Second, the belief that states can criminalize "offensive sexual behavior." What does this mean? Maybe I find a heterosexual couple in public kissing, should that be banned? Is homosexuality a crime if it happens between two consenting adults in private? If it occurs in public, if any two people regardless of sexual orientation are having sex in public, that is public indecency and can be punished, but anything in private can't be made illegal. After all, the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas declared that the CONSTITUTION protected sexual privacy.
Third, opposition to pornography. People might find it offensive and not like it, but it needs to be permitted as a result of the first amendment.
Looking at this and the fiscal policy listed above, they ought to rename themselves the Conservative Isolationist Party, not one whose name invokes the idea that they support the Constitution.
"who should you vote for?" test
I absolutely agree; I had some friends take it, and although they agreed with the candidate chosen by the test on the most issues, there was not a correlation on issues that they found important. Along with providing your opinion to all the questions, it should have another series ranging from "neutral/will not affect my voting" to "this issue is of top importance to me."
We should only require DNA testing in some instances. These are one, when there is the possibility that life in prison or the death sentence could be given, and two, when there is no indisputable, unbiased evidence against the defendant (i.e.: if the defendant is seen without any doubt performing the illegal activities on a security camera). We do not need to tie up the legal system and facilities that perform DNA testing by requiring it for petty and insignificant crimes.
I support civil unions only as an alternative to no rights for homosexual couples, but would like to see same-sex marriage as the real outcome. What is it about homosexuals that makes their relationships and love for one another different than between a person with a "sexual organ that dangles, and one with one that is aesthetically pleasing" (quote by Gregory House)?
We do not need to have public campaign financing because it is not necessary for the country to spend money in such a way that one-half (or more, depending on how many candidates get funding) will be spent on losers.
Further, donations by private groups are insufficient to make candidates beholden to them, as there are restrictions on the amounts that people and political interest groups can give. These amounts are insignificant compared to the entire cost of the campaign as a whole.
This won't give all candidates equal opportunities and allow the "best" to win the election, it will just waste money, which is not something that our country ought to think it can afford to do.
The legislative branch of government only has the power to grant the president line-item veto power through a constitutional amendment, which would then require ratification by three-fourths of the states. Since 43/50 of the states have some form of line-item veto power for their governors, the second part of ratification would not be a problem. However, the legislative branch does not seem to support the idea because they would lose some power that they feel is important. The use of a bill to provide money for seemingly unnecessary local projects allows the senators and representatives to provide money and jobs to the people in their districts, which allows them to say that they did something for their constituents come re-election time. I think that this might be why incumbents are re-elected so often. However, there is also the issue of the executive branch; and I think it is reasonable to say that it may choose to veto items based on a political agenda. For example, wouldn't Bush likely veto projects in Massachusetts or California, while keeping things like the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, a state that voted for him and which elected Republican senators. On the other hand; would a Democrat keep a project on a budget for Texas if he had the power to remove it?
This man was a complete nut. He obviously was in support of establishing a segregation-based America along the lines of apartheid in South Africa. It is sad that there were people like Strom around in the government all the way to the 21st century. I guess he wasn't completely bad, because he later moderated his views on race, but continued to stand by what he stood for in the 50s. Then there was his record filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I doubt that anyone is absolutely evil, but Strom at the beginning of his Senate career came close.
The is no need to fear "frankenfoods"
GE foods are superior to the natural alternatives, if they were not then they would not be profitable to make or use. A genetically improved plant can make more food than a non-genetically altered one could, and is more likely to produce that food, as they are usually made to be disease or insect resistant.
Without reliance on technologies such as these, it is possible that we may face a severe famine sometime in the future as Thomas Malthus predicted. Such an event could bring civilization to ruins, and I wouldn't particularly like for that to happen.
Earth cannot sustain humanity forever, we must boldly go out into the cosmos in search of new places to exist. Obviously that will take a very long time, but we need to begin sometime soon and somewhere close. The moon makes an excellent choice because it has several useful resources and spacecraft built there will be able to be launched without as much expenditure of fuel as needed from Earth.
There are also the scientific reasons to go, as the moon may be able to tell us more about the Earth as it formed and can help us develop the means to go elsewhere.
Iran must be civilized or ostracized
Iran, as a totalitarian, fundamentalist Islamic state that has no good thoughts toward anyone in the world, needs to be taught that [possibly] seeking nuclear weapons, and destabilizing neighboring Iraq are not acceptable. Iran doesn't like neighboring Arab states that do not follow the Shiite branch of Islam, or do not follow strict Islamic Law, the Sharia. They certainly do not like Israel because it is a Jewish state and holds Jerusalem, which despite being a holy city for 3 religions, must belong fully to Islam in their opinion. And of course they do not like the United States or any other members of the "degenerate infidel Western Democracies." What could this country be expected to do if it is allowed absolute freedom to do what it wants without regard towards anyone else? I don't really want to know.
Iran deserves sanctions that will hopefully target the government if possible, as a large number of Iranians, especially the younger ones who grew up after the 1979 revolution, are not particularly strong supporters of the government.
And the difference from heterosexuals is?
If the two people involved in a relationship are of the same gender, why should that prevent them from having the same privileges and rights of a heterosexual couple? A man and a woman have the right to enter into a formal relationship that more often than not ends painfully in divorce, but two men or two women who love each other cannot have the right to have an accepted and equal relationship.
People claim that this will somehow ruin the "sanctity of marriage", and this is something I do not understand. So having same-sex marriage will ruin the institution for opposite-sex couples? They will somehow feel bad about their marriage as a result, or what?
I don't see the argument against same-sex marriage as anything more than homophobia or some sort of belief that homosexuals are lesser beings than people whose sexual relations occur between, as Gregory House said, "sexual organs that dangle, and ones that are aesthetically pleasing."
Certainly the federal government doesn't need to take any action for prostitution to be legalized, it is an issue for the states. I do not live in Nevada, so I don't know how it is working there, but legalization makes sense at least academically. Illegality doesn't make anyone safer. When we tried to make alcohol illegal, we ended up making sure that criminal organizations were existent and well-funded; the same is true for the drug industry today.
Despite the fact that the idea of legalization makes sense, I don't see any politicians actually saying that, and I don't see a large number of states actually actually passing whatever is needed to make this industry legal. I just don't know if enough people are in support to make up for all those that would not re-elect someone who had suggested legalization. What does everyone else think of this? Am I right, or do I not understand the will of the people?
Maybe not explicitly under this issue, but I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the legalization and regulation of prostitution.
Many nations, especially in Europe, have legalized and regulated prostitution, not out of absolute support, but because they feel that doing so is actually in the best interests of these people. It seems that prostitution is a factor of society, and that those who participate in it should not be criminalized. Right now, prostitution is legal only in Nevada, and then only in counties with less than 400,000 residents, and the citizens of that state do not seem to concerned by the issue. Also, if legalized, the government could provide some social services for people in this profession, and could ensure adequate testing to limit the spread of AIDS and other STDs. Taxation could also occur, which would pay for these programs, and hopefully, programs to help prostitutes get out of the business if they wish. Right now, there are few options for prostitutes to make use of if they want to get into a "better" career, and STD rates are probably significantly higher than in the general population. These are the reasons why I think that prostitution should possibly be legalized in this country.
We do not need to continue these programs because the subsidies go to tobacco and ethanol farmers, both of which don't deserve to get government funds. Tobacco is widely viewed as a public menace and the government spends money on combating its use by the public especially minors, so why does the government also support it? As for ethanol, it makes sense in places like Brazil, where sugarcane grows very well, and energy need not be spent on applying pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation. As is, it takes 3 gallons of gasoline to grow, make, and process ethanol from corn, only to produce 2 gallons worth of gasoline in ethanol. Not only that, but more material must be burned because ethanol is not as energy dense as gasoline.
How many people burn flags in this country as a sign of protest or hatred for America every year? My guess is that the answer is very few, and that the public will not support an amendment to make flag burning not a protected form of expression. And of course, an amendment would be needed because burning the flag has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be protected by the 1st Amendment. You are right, there are many more important issues facing America.
