20 Questions, in no particular order
Published Tue, Aug 12 2008 8:01 AM
How can you end racial discrimination by discriminating based upon race?
Isn't it obvious by now that the Democratic Party is right when they claim that Republican tax cuts are “tax cuts for the rich”? After all, who pays 97% of all income taxes in this country in the first place?
If the American people really want “honest” politicians, why do they continue to vote for people that lie with impunity about their records, cannot be faithful to their spouses, or get caught with bribe money in their freezers?
Why is it that politicians that cannot find anything good to say about America, and in fact often cannot keep from enumerating a long list of grievances about her, whether based in fact or not, complain when someone questions their patriotism?
How can a person claim to support “democracy” and refuse to allow an up-or-down vote on any topic, whether that topic is drilling for domestic oil or confirming judicial nominees?
Why is it that when the growth of spending upon government programs is reduced but not actually reversed, it's called a “spending cut”, sometimes qualified with the word “draconian”?
If the presumption in our legal system is “innocent until proven guilty” then upon what basis do some politicians demand the resignation of other politicians over mere accusations? (“It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge!”)
Since when did our unalienable rights, protected by the Constitution, include the right not to be offended?
How can a politician claim to seek an end to our dependence upon “foreign oil” and refuse to allow the development of domestic supplies?
Why is it that when the topic of balancing the budget comes up the proposed solutions always seem to be more taxes and not less spending?
Since when do the American people have a right to take the fruits of the labor of others for nothing?
If, as Nancy Pelosi, and others tell us we cannot “drill our way out of” high fuel prices, then why do our congressmen insist upon resolutions “requiring” foreign nations, over whom they have no control, to drill more, now?
How does raising the cost of doing business promote job growth?
Is money in politics really bad or does the question really apply to specific cases? In other words, if a politician promotes ideas and policies that people agree with enough to want to support him isn't that good, while if people offer money to change a politician's ideas and policies isn't that bad, and don't you think that the sequence of events is likely to provide evidence of which is the case?
Which is better — to set high standards and fail to attain them despite your best efforts, or to set no standards and attain nothing?
In “documentary” programs illustrating the lives of animals, we are often told that predators tend to prey upon the weak and the infirm because they are “easier prey”. We are told that this ensures the “survival of the fittest”. Isn't the analogy to “gun control” laws obvious? If the question isn't clear, think of it this way — if the possession of guns is made illegal, what class of people will still possess them, and how will they use them? Still not clear? Then consider it this way — if you were a predator, would you prefer it if your prey were armed or unarmed?
Does it really make sense to “negotiate” with someone who has said that your very existence is anathema to them and has sworn to see you eradicated?
If someone threatens to destroy you, isn't it prudent to take them at their word, especially if they've done violence to you in the past?
Considering that our population continues to grow, isn't a growing economy a necessity if we are to maintain a high standard of living for all of our citizens? If our economy is static, and we have a growing population doesn't that mean that we have a declining standard of living? Doesn't this imply that anyone that wants to slow our economy down or that works against it wants to reduce our standard of living?
Finally, a question for conservatives in particular. Conservatism stands for limited government as a means to ensure our liberties. Conservatives like to remark upon the founders vision of a limited constitutional government, citing the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as references. I ask you — do you honestly believe that the Constitutional Convention was called with the purpose of limiting the powers of the federal government? Wasn't it really called to enlarge them? The men that wrote the Federalist Papers called themselves federalists, but wasn't it really the anti-federalists that really believed in federalism?
I ask this last, not because I don't believe in limited government — I do. Further, I truly believe that the Constitution, together with it's amendments defines the most perfect form of government that our world has ever seen. I believe that limitations on the power of the federal government are important to our future, and that we need to return to that ideal — but I also believe that our federal government was created for a reason, and that some of its powers are necessary. If we consider the question — did men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton really seek a limited federal government, maybe we can understand how quickly the tensions between federal power and states rights developed.
Finally, here's a bonus question or two — which of the powers that our federal government exercises today really should belong to it, and which of the powers that our federal government exercises today ought to be re-claimed by the States and the people?
[Update: One more bonus question... If politicians from one party hold to a particular viewpoint regarding an issue while politicians from another party hold to a diametrically opposed viewpoint regarding the same issue — where is there room for compromise? Isn't it true in a case like this that one side or the other must be defeated and that for either side to compromise with the other they must surrender their principles?]
You'll note, that I'm not actually providing the answers to these questions in the post. I'm sure though that you can figure out from the way I ask them what I think. What do you think?
This linkfest is for the 12th of August, 2008. If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback. Just remember the trackback policy.
For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1224
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/8/12/1224.aspx
123beta trackbacked with "Everything New Is Old Again"
Or something like that...Wanokoto allows you to upload a photo and convert it to make it look aged. Probably something you wouldn't use everyday but occasionally...Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Websi...
Adam's Blog trackbacked with "Because Obama Said So"
Podcast Show Notes
Russia calls a cease fire just because Obama wanted them to according to potential Veep and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.
Obama fibbed about his opposition to a bill to protect unborn children born alive during an abortion.
Just like...
Shadowscope trackbacked with "Wednesday Hero: Matthew Koch"
Spc. Matthew A. Koch 23 years old from West Henrietta, New York Company C, 70th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division March 9, 2005 Spc. Matthew A. Koch was on his second tour of duty when he was...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (13 Aug 08)"
Analysis: What Russia gained and lost in ‘Little Victorious War’
Pimp My Walker - A FISA tale.
Americas growing gimme fetish.
Today’s Campaign Contest: Count the Young White Women in McCain’s Anti-Obama Video - This is just get...
The Virtuous Republic trackbacked with "Camp Washington’s Washington in Drag"
A local talk show host mentioned this four story mural of George Washington in drag last week. The mural is located in the Camp Washington neighborhood of Cincinnati. It is an older industrial area, located a few miles from the University of Cincin...
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "Weird NameS for ChildreN?"
Sooo..”there is nothing negative about a name like Coca-Cola or McDonald’s today”?
Uh huh.
...
Cao's Blog trackbacked with "Flight 93 Memorial Blogburst: Memorial Project LIES about receiving THREATS!"
Imagine if one of the passengers on Flight 93 was told that if they did not retake the airplane, they would be killed when the terrorists flew the airplane into a building. If the passenger was Joanne Hanley, she would say: “Stop threatening me!&...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Barack Obama and pro-life voters?"
There's been talk lately that the Democrat party may be more open to those who are pro-life, even to the point of having a pro-life Catholic Democrat possibly speak at the convention. Barack Obama has even met with pro-life groups ...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Layla responded with:
 | Thought provoking questions that deserve an answer, which I really do not have.
I do submit however that this is a different day and age - that politicians are all liars, and if not, they become liars once they are voted in.
As for politicians cheating, heh, most men, are not faithful these days and neither are women.
Generations past respected marriage, the vows of marriage, had integrity, character and honesty.
All this is socially and politically incorrect now.
I am tempted to say, just don't vote-but when I think of Obama, my disgust of him out weighs my disdain for McCain.
Great post my friend. |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | As long as the questions keep coming our elected or appointed officials may have to deal with them at some point. These are the things that keep this country strong.
When action is required, like quelling the amnesty legislation last summer, it will follow. Largely due to raising the questions and sounding the alarm.
As a side note, I'm gonna need some time to ponder the Federalist item. |
Layla responded with:
| Perri, another thought here. I am sure by now heard that prices at the oil pump are going down. Here in the Beltway we are already seeing prices down to 3.69 from 4.89. I wonder what the excuses the retailers will use now for all their jacked up prices from cloths to donuts? |
David responded with: "jacked up prices"
 | "I wonder what the excuses the retailers will use now for all their jacked up prices from cloths to donuts?"
1. Those who do not (either or both) use the differential in costs to lower prices and/or increase employee pay/reinvest in their business/improve products and services will loose market share to those who do.
2. The question seems to imply ("escuses... for all their jacked up prices") that prices have not been naturally responsive to inflationary pressure from (in part) increased oil/fuel costs, passed on down the chain at every link, as they must naturally do for businesses to have the gross profits to pay wages and pay owners (who also, BTW, need to eat). Such an implication does not appear to be well thought out.
Perri, as to your question about Federal authority nd power (Federalists/Anti-federalists, etc.), yes, some of the Framers wanted more than just a more effective, but still restrained, federal government to replace the confederation that had proven to be ineffective, especially in light of continuing pressures from Britain. Indeed, Hamilton wanted pretty much what we have today (complete with political royalty and nob ility, such as the Presidency now seems to be clothed with and congresscritters seem to feel they are). Mr. Lincoln's War (also properly, IMO, known as The Great Unitarian-Baptist Shootout *heh*) was largely an attempt by Mr. Lincoln to bring about a federal government with the powers Hamilton had wanted it to have to begin with.
But the Federalists were, by and large, very wary of the kind of oppression an excessively powerful central government could become and did everything in their power to prevent the kind of central government we have today that is truly the embodiment of what may well be the eight most frightening words in the English language:
"I'm from the government. I'm here to help." |
Perri Nelson responded with: Federalists/Antifederalists
 | David I knew you'd understand a large part of what I was asking and why. I think that people like Madison and Hamilton very much wanted a strong central government, a National government with a much limited role for the States. That's not really federalism though, it's nationalism, a whole different critter. Carol Berkin, author of “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” has argued that by choosing the name “Federalists”, Madison, Hamilton, et al denied to their opposition the ability to effectively argue against the Constitution. After all, it's pretty hard to argue for true federalism when by default you're tagged with a moniker like “Anti-Federalist”. It's an argument that I'm interested in examining in more detail over time. Still, I much prefer a limited government like the Constitution quite plainly describes, with the ability and powers to provide a strong defense for all of the States. I still believe that that's the foremost responsibility and power granted to the federal government, and a necessary one. Much of the rest of our federal government seems to me to have departed from what the framers authorized — which is the reason for my first “bonus” question about the rightfully exercised and the wrongly claimed and exercised “powers” of our federal government. |